Emotions: Why and How

One of my questioners on Quora, asked: “How does the passing around of electrical and chemical signals between neurons in our brains result in feelings and experiences?” In other words, why do humans respond to experiences with some kind of emotion? Why doesn’t the experience just register as a neutral event? A computer works just fine with emotion-free information. However, humans must do something that computers are not obliged to do: that is, act in the world. Acting in the world is enhanced if the triggering information has psychological valence, that is a range of “good-ness” and “bad-ness.” Valence creates passion. Passion generates energetic action.

We are attracted to things that seem good and avoid things that seem bad, all proportional to the degree of the valence. In evolutionary terms, valence has enormous adaptive value. Evolving animals benefit from being able to assign value to the information in their environment. They make extra effort to pursue what is valuable to their wellbeing and avoid things that are not.

The animal species existing today, at least the higher species, clearly show signs of assigning value to their experiences, even if we have no evidence that they are consciously aware of their feelings. Dogs, for example, clearly demonstrate such emotions as joy, sadness, disappointment, anxiety, eagerness, and so on.

Mammalian species are able to assign value because they have a special system in the brain known as the limbic system. This system is not present in fish or amphibians and is only rudimentary in reptiles. The limbic system has highly interconnected clusters of neurons that mediate the various dimensions of emotions. For example, the limbic system’s amygdala is largely involved in generating anxiety and fear, the hippocampus is involved in forming memories and their associated valence, and the hypothalamus regulates viscera and hormone systems to respond according to emotional valence.

The limbic system is evolutionarily conserved in humans. What is different is that humans have a much more robust cerebral cortex for analysis of emotional valence and behavioral response to it. This is possible because the limbic system is richly connected to cortex via a limbic structure known as the entorhinal cortex. Connections of the limbic system’s dopamine-dependent nucleus accumbens and striatum reach control systems for movements, and thus behavior is informed by emotional valence.

Emotional valence need not be realized consciously in order to affect behavior. Emotional behavior occurs in primitive mammals, in which we have little reason to believe they are capable of robust consciousness. Even in humans, many emotions go unrecognized, yet still influence behavior. Indeed, a common purpose of psychotherapy aims to help patients recognize their emotions and thus understand them.

The as yet unanswered question is how the limbic system assigns degrees of good-ness and bad-ness. Clearly, some of the answer comes from feedback from visceral and hormonal systems, which normally are servo-regulated. In a servo-system, good-ness is inherently defined as an experience that supports homeostasis, with bad-ness defined oppositely. Much of the limbic mechanisms involves memory recall, wherein memory of an experience that was originally interpreted by the cortex as beneficial or good, is used to label a similar new experience. Likewise, memory of a bad experience serves to label similar new experiences.

This still leaves open the question of how neurons can code for good-ness and bad-ness. No doubt, neurons that register good-ness become more active when they receive information that is good. How does the brain known where to send good information and where to send bad information? Likely, this involves intrinsic wiring connections, for example, the fiber tracts that mediate positive reinforcement in the medial forebrain bundle that course through the hypothalamus to connect several limbic structures. No doubt such connections had natural selection advantage during the evolution of the limbic system, just as it was important to evolve other pathways that could mediate negative and perhaps harmful information.

Even lowly single-cell animals have inherent capability for attraction to beneficial stimuli and avoidance of harmful stimuli. The evolution of a limbic system just allows for a much more robust assignment of valence.

You can learn more about this in the introductory inexpensive e-textbook, Core Ideas in Neuroscience. For future reference, I will post this answer on my blog site at Psychology Today.

The Role of Learning in Religion, Part 1

(Excerpted from the new book, Triune Brain, Triune Mind, Triune Worldview (Brighton Publishing)(available at Amazon and Barnes and Noble).

What one is taught and chooses to learn about religion changes the biology of the brain. Changing brain biology is likely to change who and what you are as a person. This principle applies to everyone, religious or irreligious.

Learning Changes the Brain. One's original DNA does not control everything about brain structure or general mental properties. The genetically inheritable component has been determined from identical twin studies to be about 40-50%.[i] Environment, especially learning, controls the rest. Thus, what this means is that what one learns, including religious ideas, can change your brain.

When the brain learns something new, it creates a new pattern of nerve impulses flowing around networks of neurons. This impulse pattern is the brain’s way or representing the information, and as long as the pattern representation exists, as in working memory, you have conscious access to it. If that pattern can continue intact for some time with subsequent rehearsal, it may induce gene expression in neurons to store the representation as a more lasting memory. This process involves the necessary protein synthesis for the information-relevant synapses. Such synthesis enables proliferation of more dendrites and axon terminals. These new proteins create the structure of new synapses, and an increase in both number of neurotransmitter molecules and postsynaptic receptor proteins.[ii]

Everything we learn from what we see, hear, smell, feel, taste, or even imagine can potentially change the structure and networking of our brains. Should we not expect the same of religious learning? Brain scans suggest that one part of the brain, the anterior cingulate gyrus, seems especially sensitive to such effects.[iii] However, the brain can be damaged by belief in a wrathful and punishing God. A chronic fear that God regards you as an enemy inevitably produces emotional distress. The continual bathing of brain in cortisol released during chronic stress causes synaptic junctions to shrink. Such shrinkage is evident in the hippocampus, a large cluster of neurons that are crucial for processing emotions and for forming memories.[iv] Reduced function in this structure may create thinking limitations. In other words, belief in a wrathful God impairs mental health. Scripture is replete with admonitions to fear God. A healthier admonition is to be more attune to God’s expectations and hopes for you.

All cells are susceptible to genetic mutation, which in the case of neurons could likely change circuit connectivity. A startling recent discovery of enormous implications challenges the accepted dogma that all of a person's cells have the same genetic coding. It turns out that this is not true in neurons. The DNA in each nerve cell has hundreds of mutations of the A-T, C-G nucleotides that constitute the genetic code for the neuron.[v] No two neurons are identical. The study was conducted by 18 research teams at 15 U.S. institutions, formed as a consortium by the National Institute of Mental Health to examine neural genetic coding, using repositories of postmortem brain tissue taken from both healthy people and those with various mental diseases.

The scientists have no explanation at present for the cause of so many mutations in neurons and for why each neuron has a different genetic profile. The most obvious possibility might be that the mutations occurred as transcription errors during cell division. We don't know when these mutations occur. Except for granule cells in the hippocampus and cerebellum, neurons generally do not divide after the first few days after birth. If cell division is the cause of mutations, the mutations likely occurred in the fetus and during the early post-natal period. More likely, life’s learning experiences cause many of these genetic changes.

These startling findings of so much genetic diversity in neurons open a completely new field of research. Scientists need to examine different cell types in other organs to see if each cell in the organ has the identical genes.

There is a related aspect. Each neuron differs not only in its genes, but also in which genes are expressed. The new field of "epigenetics" has revealed that environmental influences, ranging from drugs, toxins, metabolites, and perhaps even lifestyles, can affect the expression of genes. In the case of brain, there is the distinct possibility that one's mental life can affect gene expression.

So far, what I have said about gene change and expression refers to single individuals. But what if some of these gene mutations or epigenetic effects also occur in sex cells? That would mean that traits acquired during one's lifetime could transfer to future generations. I would hope that the research consortium that has made this monumental discovery about brain cells would extend its charter to examine sperm and ova.

Recent research on the genetics of the classic animal model of brain function, C. elegans, reveals that epigenetic inheritance of neuronal traits does occur.[vi] Gene expression was modified by exposing the animals to high temperatures, and the genetic change transferred via both ova and sperm to offspring that had no exposure to high temperature. The epigenetic change was still present some 5-14 generations later.

To the extent that the findings of both of these studies can be extrapolated to humans, we must now consider the possibility that personal lifestyle, environmental, and cultural influences on people may be propagated to successive generations of their children. Bad environments and lifestyle choices may extend well into the future, magnifying the deleterious consequences through multiple generations. We now have to consider that medical and behavioral problems, poverty, and degenerate cultures can arise when not only people make poor choices but also that the effects can be genetically propagated to subsequent generations. Is this a basis for scripture that asserts the sins of the fathers will be visited upon the sons? It isn’t a matter of fairness. It is basic biology.

Recent research discloses how what the brain thinks, feels, and does affects its own structure and function. For one thing, synaptic connections and network configurations respond to neural activity. The idea was first advanced by Daniel Hebb, who famously said, “neurons that fire together wire together.” Firing of impulses change the synaptic junctions that receive the voltage shocks of nerve impulses. Hebb meant the comment to explain the formation of memories. But the idea can be extended more generally as an explanation of how the brain programs itself.

Associated with real-time changes in synaptic strength and circuit formation, the environment and even brain activity creates genetic changes. Recent discoveries place new importance on the genetic effects of RNA. Originally, scientists emphasized how RNA allowed translation of the code in DNA to specify the selective manufacture of proteins. Now we know there are many kinds of RNA with far different functions.[vii] There is a circular RNA, with unknown function. Gene expression is influenced by several kinds of RNA (cis-natural antisense RNA, enhancer RNA, long noncoding RNA, microRNA, small interfering RNA, and many others). Neuroscientists have known for decades that the brain is readily modified. We likely have underestimated this “neuroplasticity.”

In the next post, we will explore specific ways in which we program our brains to accept and live religious ideas. Relevant learning principles include neural plasticity, learning attitudes, the brain’s self-programming, and the various kinds of conditioning. Everyday topics covered will include the brain’s self-programming, child rearing, neural development, and aging,

To be continued in next post

---

[i] Spector, Tim (2013). What twins reveal about the science of faith. Popular Science. http://www.popsci.com/sciencetarticle/2013-08/what-twins-reveal-about-god-gene, Aug. 8. Retrieved Aug 29, 2018.

[ii] Klemm, W. R. (2012). Memory Power 101. New York: Skyhorse.

[iii] Newberg, A. and Waldman, M.R (2009).  How God Changes Your Brain:  Breakthrough Findings from a Leading Neuroscientist.  New York:  Ballantine Books.

[iv] Owen, A. D. et al. (2011) Religious factors and hippocampal atrophy in late life. PLoS ONE. 6(3), e17006. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017006

[v] McConnell, M. J. et al. (2017).Intersection of diverse neuronal genomes and neuropsychiatric diseases: The brain somatic mosaicism network. Science.  356(6336), 395. doi: 10.1126/scienceaa1641.

[vi] Klosin, Adam et al. (2017). Transgenerational transmission of environmental information in C. elegans. Science. 356 (6335), 320-323.

[vii] Williams, Ruth. (2017). The RNA age: a primer. The Scientist. May 11. http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/49322/title/The-RNA-Age--A-primer/&utm_campaign=NEWSLETTER_TS_The-Scientist-Daily_2016&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=51867147&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--5Y6L__mQ5g5cwWMxpaXeBqIplViYJrGmBsktGENQ5mQxzW1JpTJFoM9lTG13Er6g8dCIoSgZWAaYX9MxePbLCLWMrPw&_hsmi=51867149/

The Neuroscience of Why Children Play

All children, if given the chance, will play, preferably with other children. The games they play

are often creative, rough and tumble, and of course―fun. Some consequences are obvious:

·         Fun is a positively reinforcing emotion. It makes kids happy.

·         Play encourages exploration with fewer constraining boundaries than the drone of regular life.

·         Play is an effective way to socialize and make friends.

·         Play stimulates initiative and engagement, rather than passively observing what others do.

But there is another less obvious reason, one that is biological. In a review in the American Journal of Play (yes, there really is a scholarly journal on play), evidence is provided from controlled studies in rats and some primates. These studies show that when young animals are encouraged to play they develop improved social competence, cognition, and emotional regulation later in life. Play experience also makes them more adaptable to unexpected situations.

It is true that play is not a developmental feature in all species. The capacity (and need) for play is most evident in higher mammals with developed neocortex and that live in complex social environments. Play fighting is adaptive in predator species, like bears and lions that depend on aggression for survival as adults. In all species that exhibit juvenile play, play is a developmental tool that promotes the neocortical executive control regions to control other neural systems.

Play fighting is especially interesting because the juveniles must construct and obey certain rules. They intuitively recognize that they must not bite too hard, for example, and must give the opponent at chance to win sometimes or at least hold their own in the contest. The juveniles are clearly learning self-control, which will serve them well as adult. This reminds me of the touch football games that kids play.

Species that most obviously exhibit juvenile play are humans, dogs, cats, and ravens. In species where adults play, play can have immediate functions such as defusing social tensions and dominance relationships. Rats are an interesting case. They engage in juvenile play much more than other rodent species. Adult rats seem to exhibit novel mental capabilities, especially those involving social interactions that are not so prominent in other rodents.

When members of a play-oriented species are denied access to juvenile play, they can become dysfunctional adults. For example, rats raised in social isolation show physical and chemical deficiencies in their brains and they have behavioral abnormalities linked to impaired executive control function. They show excessive anxiety to stressful or fear-inducing situations. They over-react to benign social interactions. They are less able to coordinate movements with a partner, both in sexual and non-sexual contexts. They are less able to solve mental tasks. Similar problem are seen in monkeys deprived of juvenile play. Being raised by a surrogate mother is emotionally and intellectually devastating, but less so if the surrogate is robot-like and can interact in play-like behavior with the infant.

Juvenile play sculpts the brain to be more adaptable later in life. In modern human society, juvenile play is often obstructed by such externals as over-scheduling, too much adult supervision, and too many restrictions. The restrictions are often for reasons of safety, which is understandable in today's world. When I was a child, we had a lot more freedom to play, and in safety. It was not unusual in the summer time for a kid to leave home after breakfast and not return until supper, going alone to a park or neighbor kid's house to play unsupervised as we wished. Sadly, that is too much freedom these days. In this respect, the "good old days" really were the "good old days."

Source:

Pellis, S. M., Pellis, V. C., and Himmler, B. T. (2014). How play makes for a more adaptable brain. Ame. J. Play. 7 (1) 73-98

"Memory Medic's new book has just been released: "Improve Your Memory for a Healthy Brain." Smashwords.com

The Role of Research Funding in Education Practice

If we learn anything about educational policy, we should learn that what we have tried over the last couple of decades to improve student achievement doesn’t work very well. I won’t bore you with all the statistics showing that academic ability of U.S. students lags that of most other developed countries and our ranking is not improving. I would like to explore one reason for lack of progress besides faulty federal policy. And that reason is research funding. We don’t know enough about how brains learn and remember, nor how to apply what we do know to educational policy.

The recently announced winners of the Nobel Prize included nine from the U.S. In a recent joint interview by leaders of the American Association of Science, the winners spent little time discussing their research achievements, preferring to expound on some serious concerns about how research is now funded in the U.S.

Of course, some of these concerns could be considered whining. Like much of the general public, the scientific community has become dependent on government. When federal funds don’t grow at high rates, scientists can be cry-babies too. Nobody seems to care much about the growing federal debt and a very real threat of looming financial disaster in this country. Interest groups, including those in science, think if we have to cut funding, it should come out of somebody else’s piece of the pie. As a result, nothing much gets cut anywhere.

But there are legitimate issues about science policy and how federal money is allocated for research. The U.S. leads the world in Nobel Prizes by about 3 to 1. Actually, this understates our prowess. Young scientists from all over the world come here to learn world-class science, but we make most of them go back home to become science superstars in their own country. At the same time, we have little stomach for deporting uneducated illegal aliens. It’s hard to think of a more stupid immigration policy.

Randy Schekman, physiology winner, said that many of our best young foreign scientists are "returning to their countries because those countries, unlike ours, see the promise of investment in basic science. It's actual damage that's occurring right now." Several of the other laureates concurred.

The future of U.S. science may well be in jeopardy. The new Nobelists point out that the buying power of National Institute of Health funding has shrunk by 28% over the last seven or eight years. Moreover, government needs to re-think how that money is distributed. For example:

·         Michael Levitt, who won the award for chemistry, said "A huge change in the last 30 years has been that people under 40 get almost no money, and people over 65 get lots of money. Everyone here would agree that we made our discoveries when we were under 40."

·         James Rothman, winner in physiology, blamed big-science mentality where too much money as being “allocated into pre-determined projects is heading toward bureaucrat-driven science."

I fought the grant wars for years and finally gave up. I got too few grants for all the time I wasted writing proposals. Several of the Nobelists commented on how much time scientists waste writing proposals that don’t get funded.

Another part of the problem, apparently not mentioned in the interview, is that too much money is soaked up by too few grants. Universities have negotiated enormous overhead fees, sometimes exceeding 100% of the grant, and that is money that mostly goes into the institutions’ general fund, not the funded project. Also, too much grant money goes to salary support for the scientists. It used to be that universities were committed to supporting their scientists. Now, universities expect their scientists to hustle money for the university. As a result, too much grant money gets consumed by projects that are scientifically sexy and will sell, not necessarily for the most promising science. An associated problem is that government spends way too much grant money pursuing scientific fads. Far too many areas in science have no chance of getting competitive funding simply because they are currently unfashionable.

Source:

http://membercentral.aaas.org/announcements/us-nobel-prize-winners-honored-dc