Talk:Brain/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Smalahove in the 'As Food' Section

The text says that Smalahove is served with the brains but the Wikipedia article for Smalahove says that the brains are removed. One of them needs to be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.220.194.102 (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right. As far as I've been able to figure out, the brain is removed. At least, in modern times. I'll fix it. --Hordaland (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

billions?

hi, article specifies that brain has 23 billion of neurons, but does not specify is billion == one thousand million, or == one million million (taken from Billion) Crenshaw (talk)

I swear to you my brother that it is 10^9 or a thousand million. source 24.138.20.104 (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Please help to figure out license type for the image "Comparative brain sizes".

I removed the above instruction from the article face. Please do not place such text in articles. You may place such requests on Talk pages. The article space is governed by policies and guidelines, including WP:MOS, that prohibit such edits. Thanks. encephalon 08:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC) sbsddsdewdddddcsdd

Will and directed brainwork

It's will that controlls us. Everything you do (think, eat, move) you want it.

1. Humans have ability to direct all one's brainwork (thoughts, feelings, wills) to another one. That means you can make another soul to feel what you do, feel, think. He will feel his own and sender life at same time.

2. You can use your muscles with will what controlls them. You can controll some another human body(muscles) with your own will. That means you can make another soul to do(think) what you want (to want what you want). His muscles will do what both of you want. You can think to another one, who will feel his own and the sender's thoughts at same time.

You must want it. That's life. Joakim 21:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

You're talking about the cognitive mind which arises out of brain function. --Oldak Quill 22:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

brainPOP @ my brain

by michael simpson The brain is the supervisory center of the nervous system in all vertebrates. It also serves as the site of emotions, memory, self-awareness, and thought. Hippocrates considered the brain to be the seat of thought, while Aristotle believed it to be a cooling system for the blood. The brain stem is the lower part of the brain, adjoining and structurally continuous with the spinal cord. The upper segment of the human brain stem, the pons, contains nerve fibers that connect the two halves of the cerebellum. It is vital in coordinating movements involving right and left sides of the body.

Mkay....Link9er 14:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Article re-write and restructure

I saw that this article came up for review as a FAC. I still think it needs an overwhelming amount of work. Fortunately many of the subsections are very good so, although the task seems daunting, I am proposing the following "roadmap" towards improving the article:

Phase 1: Fact checking - there is a lot of unsourced information in the article. Much of it is very basic and should be covered by referring to a basic textbook. Other is quite esoteric. We can start doing this bit by bit and along the way.

Phase 2: Designing a better organizational scheme - the article is very disjointed and out of order. We need to decide on a better scheme (we can discuss these here) and do a major rearranging.

Phase 3: Removal of extraneous information: There is a lot of information here that does not belong in a basic article on the brain, a lot could be incorporated into other articles and especially that long list of regions could be sent to its own article.

Phase 4: Addition of helpful diagrams: We can find some on the net or we can draw our own like we did in the cerebellum article.

Phase 5: Proofreading: Making sure the prose is clear, technical terms are explained, logic is consistent, etc. We could recruit some editors that have provided lots of help with proofreading science articles such as Tony to help out.

OK, I know this is a lot of work, but now we know where to start. Any comments? Nrets 21:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've cleaned up and simplified the brain regions list, linking to the List_of_regions_in_the_human_brain article. That article needs quite a bit of work as well, unfortunately... Semiconscious (talk · home) 23:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• I have re-structured the article to fit a better organizational scheme. I also removed some extraneous and redundant info. It would be useful to get input from other editors in terms of any general sections that are missing from the article.There is still random bits and pieces that seem out of place and maybe should be removed, but it would also help to have other editors look at this. Nrets 20:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• • I'm just looking at this, and although it is GA, there are far too few inline citations.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Internal links

Whitecat: Before you begin removing wikilinks from articles I think you should read my reply on Talk:Human_brain, as well as the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) you linked to. Notably the following: On the other hand, do not make too many links. An article may be considered overlinked if any of the following is true:

• more than 10% of the words are contained in links;
• it has more links than lines;
• a link is repeated in the same article (although there may be case for duplicating an important link that is distant from the previous occurrence);
• more than 10% of the links are to articles that don't exist; or
• low added-value items are linked without reason, e.g., 1995, 1980s and 20th century.

The links are not abnormal, and I see no reason for you to have removed links to tribe and film on the brain article. Both of those are interesting internal links for people to follow. Semiconscious • talk 06:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

See [1] at Talk:Human_brain WhiteCat 15:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Humans the most inteligent???

Hollyyyyyyyy shit!!! I have never seen a picture of the elephant's and the dolphin's brains before i knew that they were big but this. Look at the amount of gyri they have - more than our own brain does. These animals have got to be smarter than us in so many aspects. -- Boris 19:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Whale brains are insanely large... But yeah, I never noticed now many gyri and sulci the dolphin and elephant brains have. Crazy. Semiconscious • talk 20:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the brains of birds have no gyri and sulci, and african grey parrots and corvids (jays, ravens, crows, etc) are considered to be around as intelligent as apes and dolphins (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_intelligence) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.113.233.121 (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

I do not believe brain size matters. If it did, elephants and dolphins wouls rule the planet, be able to talk, and other sci-fi sounding things.

☻wilted☻rose☻dying☻rose☻ (talk) 13:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be more intelligent to not wish to "rule the planet"? --Hordaland (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've heard it is actually brain size in comparison to body size which is a good measure of intelligence which makes sense in this respect.--Supertask (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've heard the same thing. But the brain to body mass ratio article and its Talk:Brain to body mass ratio discussion page seem to say it's not such a good measure after all. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

CJD, kuru and brain eating; references

There's a statement in this article:

Brain consumption can also result in contracting fatal transmissible spongiform encephalopathies such as Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and other prion diseases in humans

which has a reference attached to it. Unfortunately, the references in this article are badly maimed. I would like to see such a reference; while the causal connection between brain eating in humans and the disease 'kuru' has been well documented (as stated in the following pa How did the brain get it's name? Where is the place ment of the brain? what is the of the brain?

Picture of FMRI

I would like to add a picture of an FMRI scan in the subsection "FMRI and BOLD" - would this be ok?

Yes, be BOLD with your edits! (make sure the picture is not copyrighted and you assign it the correct license tag). Nrets 01:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"New Church Teaching"

Surely this is vague philosophising about the brain, not Study of the Brain.1Z 18:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

In mammals, the brain is surrounded by connective tissues called the meninges...

contrast with

The brain is bathed in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), which circulates between layers of the meninges...

If the brain is surrounded by a cavity which contains CSF, it is not directly bathed in CSF. The article needs to make up its mind. I would suggest the former terminology, since it has the advantage of being consistent with fact. Not that Wikipedia tends to predicate information on such a basis as that.

The interstitial fluid in which the brain is bathed is not the same as cerebrospinal fluid. If it were, the blood-brain barrier and the blood-CSF barrier would be the same thing. They are not. --76.209.59.227 22:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Energy costs

A vertebrate brain about the same size in a cold blooded animal and in a warm blooded animal will demand around the same amount of energy. Which is why big brained animals is almost only seen in warm blooded animal. From http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_10_108/ai_58360823/pg_3 :

"Fish, after all, are cold-blooded animals, with "low-cost" bodies in terms of energy use. Because they do not produce much heat, cold-blooded vertebrates have a metabolic rate only 10 to 20 percent that of warm-blooded vertebrates at the same body temperature. Yet their brains need about the same amount of energy, because both warm-blooded and cold-blooded brains function in essentially the same way on a cellular level (cold-blooded and warm-blooded brains consume nearly the same amount of energy).

The bigger an animal gets, the more expensive having a large brain becomes. For a 1,000-fold increase in body mass, the rate of whole-body energy consumption rises only about 100 times. But a 1,000-fold increase in brain mass results in a 500-fold increase in total brain energy consumption. In general, then, relative to body size, big animals have small brains.

A cold-blooded human-sized vertebrate, such as a 150-pound alligator, has a whole-body oxygen consumption rate of approximately half a liter of oxygen per hour at 68c E But a human-sized (3-pound) brain in a cold-blooded animal would itself consume approximately a liter of oxygen per hour at the same temperature. Thus, an alligator with a human-sized brain would have to find three times more food than an alligator with a typical brain size of 0.3 ounce would. It's not surprising, therefore, that large cold-blooded vertebrates with big brains do not exist.

The rule among vertebrates--that 2 to 8 percent of the energy used by the organism is consumed by the brain--holds for all warm-blooded species (mammals and birds) as well as cold-blooded species (fishes, amphibians, and reptiles). Because the bodies of warm-blooded species consume about ten times more energy, they can afford to have brains that are approximately ten times bigger than those of cold-blooded vertebrates (with the elephant-nose fish a rare exception)."

Something that could fit in the article maybe? Rhynchosaur 23:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Brain in animals

Not all animals have brains (See also: supraesophageal ganglion and Sponge). We should address the first sentence of this article. -- Selket ^Talk 19:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

about brain

Size The cortex has 15 million neurons per sq. cm, or 146000 per sq. mm. This holds throughout the brain, regardless of cortical thickness, except in vision areas, where there is 2 1/2 times this number. [C 51] A typical neuron may have one to ten thousand input connections, but may have as many as 200 thousand. [A 40] A typical neuron may make 1000 connections to other neurons. There are approximately 100 billion (i.e. 1011) synapses per sq. cm, or 10 million per sq. mm. This estimate is based on a nominal 7000 synapses per neuron. The area of the cortex is 2200 sq. cm = 0.22 sq. m. The neocortex is 700 sq. cm. [C 45] Therefore the human cortex contains approximately 30 billion (3 X 1010) neurons. [C 51] Other estimates run from 10 billion to 100 billion (1010 - 1011) neurons and 1014 to 1015 synapses. [A 5] The chimp and gorilla have about 500 sq. cm of cortex and therefore 7-8 billion neurons. [C 51] A rat has 4-5 sq. cm of cortex, and therefore about 65 million neurons. [C 51] There are approximately 100 million receptor cells in the retina. They feed into approximately one million ganglion cells (also in the retina). After age 40, about 1000 neurons die per day. (I seem to have forgotten the source of this...) Speed Typical spikes (action potentials) are 1 - 10 msec. long. Maximum spike rate is several hundred per second. It takes at least N msec. to distinguish N values by rate coding (due to the Gabor uncertainty principle). Therefore, in 100 msec. a value can be transmitted with 1-2 digits of precision. [M 166] The synaptic delay is about 1/2 msec. [A] A typical postsynaptic potential has a rise time of 1 - 2 msec. and a decay time of 3 - 5 msec. Much longer decay times occur, tens to hundreds of msec. [A 39-40] The membrane time constant is typically 1 - 2 msec. [A 30] The membrane length constant is typically 2 - 5 mm. [A 30] A typical mental rotation rate is 450 degrees per second. [G 515]

I want to clear this once and for all

Does brain size omake a huge difference in the maximum possible intelligence? Somoe senior at my school keeps coming up with b.s., such as liquiod nitrogen causing things to lose magnetic fields, size = intelligence, etc. I say that brain size makes a small difference, but is not a true dirct major factor in intelligence, basiong it partially on our osmall dog being highly intelligent, some kids being incredibly smart while their brains are still developing, etc. Which of us is right?

Brain size, all other things (environmental, diet) being equal, does determine intelligence. Bendž|Ť 12:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The female brain is slightly smaller than the male, yet women are not less intelligent than men. The dolphin brain is larger than the human brain, and I think you'll have a hard time arguing they are more intelligent than we are.

That being said, a recent meta-study concludes that, for non-human primates, brain size is the best indicator of cognitive ability (Overall Brain Size, and Not Encephalization Quotient, Best Predicts Cognitive Ability across Non-Human Primates, Brain Behav Evol. 2007 May 18;70(2):115-124). Superdix 16:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You should ask at the science reference desk. Bendž|Ť 21:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I've heard it is actually brain size in comparison to body size which is a good measure of intelligence which makes sense in this respect.--Supertask (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Intelligence is generally correlated with brain to body mass ratio, but there are many other factors. 194.126.102.99 (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No brain?

There are two cases i found: [2] [3] The first one - 44 year old french citizen, father of two kids and with an IQ a bit lower than the average had very little brain. The second one - mathematic student in Sheffield University, UK was found to have 1 mm brain tissue covering the top of his spinal column. The student have IQ of 126. I couldn't find any other data than news to support this info and if some of you can, i think it will be very informative if you include this in the Brain article. Vordhosbnbg 07:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There is already an article on Dandy-Walker syndrome. I can't access the second link. Sounds interesting. Bendž|Ť 06:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Try this one - [4]. Vordhosbnbg 13:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talks about it here: Hydrocephalus#Exceptional_case 194.126.102.99 (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Too humancentric?

This article seems a bit too human centred to me. Many thousands of creatures have brains, and I'm sure they have a huge variation in how their brains work, behave and appear, yet a large portion of this article seems to be about humans.

I think perhaps the page "Brain" should be more general, and most of the human stuff should be moved to a "Human Brain" page. Especialy since the human brain isn't very typical as far as brains go. -OOPSIE- 03:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with moving any disproportionate human-brain info to the sub-article. Bendž|Ť 09:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to take issues with this statement:

In mammals, increasing convolutions of the brain are characteristic of animals with more advanced brains.

This reinforces a problem with how evolution is discussed in and out of scientific circles. It implies a goal that evolution has to create big brains, and that big brains are more "advanced" than little brains. The appropriate way to think about anatomical features is whether they are better or worse based upon their ability to help the organism adapt to its environment, not how closely it conforms with some anthocentic ideal. --Dwcsite (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Too mammal-centric still

Somebody better in neuroanatomy than me should peruse this and update the article accordingly. Basically, 90% of what was believed pre-2000 about the evolutionary context of comparative vertebrate neuroanatomy is WRONG WRONG WRONG. Birds "think" with the "striatum" and their "neocortex" is all but completely absent.
In a nutshell, we have 3 (4?) independent lineages of brain evolution in vertebrates: 1-2 "fish" ones, the "avian" one and the "mammalian" one. The latter 2 separated some 300 million years ago, and "higher" brain functions were expanded completely independent from each other in these. The correlate of functional and anatomical topography of the forebrain has almost no overlap whatsoever in mammalian and avian brains. It evolved near exclusively after the lineages split.
In layman's terms, the brain of a crow and of a dolphin are about as different as their forelimbs. They evolved from the same structure, they have the same function (locomotion), but how this is achieved could hardly be more different.
Besides, I have outcommented a weird blurb about "higher on the evolutionary tree, bigger and more folded (neo)cortex". The latter half is factually wrong, the former half is... well, let's remain polite and say that teleology is dead and has been for some time, and that's good. The evolutionary tree is a pattern in time not in space; it has no "up" and "down" or "high" and "low", only "stem" and "crown" (i.e. "past" and "present"). Since the section was sourced by a reliable if slightly outdated source, I suspect it's editor error and it just needs a quick copyedit. Dysmorodrepanis 15:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

“memorizing something by heart”.

It is suggested that the above is "a colloquial variation" ... after five thousand years. May I be so bold as to suggest that a citation is needed. I quite simply do not believe this to be true. So "thinking on your feet" suggests that the brain is in your big toe?

“memorizing something by heart”, suggests to me that "hand on heart it is the truth" has more relevance. If it is not the truth, or correct, pluck my heart out. Instinct tells me this is wrong, I intend to do some research. Peta-x 13:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Cortex vs Cerebral cortex vs Cerebrum vs Cerebellum vs neocortex...

Somebody please address this, I am a PhD student in neuroscience and even I can't get my head around this (I focus on the hippocampus, MTL, and temporal lobe). I really wish that all these different pages on the [human] brain could be brought under one coherent topic. thanks Paskari 19:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Energy consumption

The energy consumption section talks about 0.1 cal/min - 1.5 cal/min values. It should be kilocalories instead of calories, shouldn't it? SyP (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Metencephalon

"In non-mammalian vertebrates with no cerebrum, the metencephalon is the highest center in the brain". - I think mesencephalon would be more correct. SyP (talk) 09:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Propose hatnote link

Should we link this to Pinky and the Brain? Brain is one of Warner Bros. more famous characters (produced by Spielberg). I was thinking about:
{{otheruses4|the center of the nervous system|the Warner Bros. cartoon character|Pinky and the Brain}}
Thoughts? ~Enviroboy^Talk_Contribs - 01:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Goat's brain

Is that picture of the goat's brain really necessary? I can understand the one of the mouse's brain, as it is informative and relevant to the topic, but to me the goat's brain is just rather disgusting and doesn't really add anything to the article. Just because there is a part about brains used as nourishment it doesn't mean there has to be a picture for it. In the article about cannibalism you also won't find a picture of human flesh prior to being used for consumption. The pictures should be to the point, scientific, objective and be useful in the context of the subject. Feyre (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks just like a brain to me; nothing disgusting about it. However, I do have two issues concerning this image. Firstly, the quality of the image is absolutely horrible. Secondly, the section is on brain as food, but the image is one of an uncooked brain. There already is an uncooked brain in the lead section, so I think that this section should have an image of a cooked brain. Shinobu (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Traumatic Brain Injury

In my (admittedly superficial) reading of this article, I find nothing on traumatic brain injury. Can anyone write about this? Pittsburgh Poet (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Try reading Traumatic brain injury =) --78.86.137.221 (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Added as "See also", since it's not linked in the article. --Hordaland (talk) 10:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The Hemispheres

The brain has 2 hemispheres. The right hemisphere primarily controls activities such as spacial thinking, processing music, and interpreting emotion. The right hemisphere controls the left side of the body. The left hemisphere primarily controls activities such as speaking, reading, writing, and solving problems. The left hemishphere controls the right side of the body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.251.141 (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Vertebrate brain regions

Fascinating! Is there anything that can be added that isn't in the wikilinks? Hope that made sense. 98.202.38.225 (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Colour coded images

Could someone knowledgable about the subject replace the rotating animation with one or more static colour coded images? The animation is too unclear and makes it impossible to focus on the image to let it ‘sink in’ due to being animated. Also, a labelled or colour coded version of the mouse brain and possibly other brains would be nice. Shinobu (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Origin

The following section was recently removed from the article. It may need rewriting, but I think it should be in there. (If one searches for 'Evolution of the brain', one is re-directed here, so there seems to be no other and better place for it.)

Origin Since even unicellular organisms can have, at least, photosensitive eyespots and react to tactile stimuli, it is hypothesized that sensory organs developed before the brain did. The brain is an information-processing organ and its evolution is dependent on the presence of information accessed into sensory organs, sensory input, and the need to process this information and transmit it.

--Hordaland (talk) 04:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes -- I envision that the "Functions of the brain" section will start with an overview, explaining that all organisms need to integrate information from the environment, and use it to generate appropriate actions. And that even single-celled organisms need to do this, but for large multicellular organisms, the need arises for a special system to transfer information between different parts of the body. So that seems like the right place for this material -- I've added some discussion of evolution already to the section on brain structure, but this seems a bit too abstract to belong there. In the long run, I want to put together a separate "evolution of nervous systems" article if nobody beats me to it -- there's a lot of cool stuff to say about that topic. Looie496 (talk) 06:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. I considered just re-adding the content to the article, but it looked to stick out like a sore thumb no matter where I put it. I think the concept is important enough to be included somewhere, even if it perhaps should be obvious. (This is somewhat related to a pet peeve of mine about eyes and the assumption that they evolved for image-forming vision, rather than first for circadian rhythms. Hmmm, now I'm wondering if I'm the one who introduced that paragraph in the first place...) Thanks for all your work on the article! --Hordaland (talk) 06:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This concept still not (specifically) covered? --Hordaland (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It's in the lead now. Should it be made more explicit? Looie496 (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

POEM

The poem at the beginning is very out of place and not at all suitable for an encyclopedic entry. It needs to be removed.

preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.108.218

I've added this note and also added the section heading. --Hordaland (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not a poem, it's only described in the article as "poetic". As the one who added it, I obviously feel that it's suitable, but I am open to further opinions. Looie496 (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It's also, I might add, a very famous quote, which has been used in dozens of books and articles. Looie496 (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Find a better example?

"In other cases, sensory signals modulate an ongoing pattern of behavior, as for example when sunlight indicates that it is time to awaken."

I am sure that a better (more direct, simpler) example can, and should, be found. The mechanisms of sleep onset and offset are quite complicated. The sentence as written might suggest that animals in arctic regions are awake or asleep for 6 months at a time. OK, devil's advocate here, but I do think this example should be replaced. Thanks, --Hordaland (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understand your objection, so I'm afraid any replacement I found (hunger?) might have the same issue. Are there any specific ideas that occur to you? Looie496 (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the example is OK, and it's the wording I object to? The sentence make it sound like a very simple cause → effect, which it isn't. In addition, not all animals awaken to sunlight, quite the contrary.

How about: "In other cases, sensory signals modulate an ongoing pattern of activity, as for example the effect of light-dark cycles in nature on an organism's sleep-wake behavior."

(Trying to avoid the use of the word behavior twice in one sentence, here)

Done, with a couple of tweaks. By the way, I hope you will feel free to make changes where things look awkward or incorrect to you. Looie496 (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, have you seen this? I'm not even sure what it's a part of, but it is fascinating. (.......Ok, I looked again; it's part of this.) --Hordaland (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No, not familiar with that. I'll look it over. Regarding the function of sleep, for slow-wave sleep I've become pretty convinced by Guilio Tononi's way of thinking about things -- for REM sleep I have my own idiosyncratic theory, along the lines that its function is to allow an organism to simulate situations that are encountered rarely in life but when encountered are so important that it's critical to get them right. Looie496 (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"Brain and Mind" section reads like a poorly written high school paper

The brain and mind section reads like a poorly written high school paper.

The tone is unprofessional including gems like, "It is hard to doubt that a relationship of some sort exists..." "Through most of history the great majority of people, including philosophers, found it inconceivable that anything like thought could be implemented by what is in essence a mere piece of meat," and rhetorical questions.

It needs work. 63.139.220.200 (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)TC

My main aim in writing that section was to raise the issues and direct readers to the articles that deal with them, while avoiding statements that would require an extended defense for which there is no room here. But if you have specific suggestions for improving the wording, please make them. Or if you wait a few days, the semi-protect will expire, and you can edit the article yourself. Looie496 (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I just rewrote the Brain and mind section. If anyone is interested in reading it and removing the infoboxTino Georgiou: The Fates (talk) 02:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't think it's an improvement -- to me it reads like kind of a hash now, and contains a couple of statements that I believe are actually false. I think it would be better to go back to the previous version, but because I'm the one who wrote it, it might be less likely to lead to hard feelings if somebody else does the revert instead of me. looie496 (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't add anything, I just rewrote what was there. But I agree, let a neutral party decideTino Georgiou: The Fates (talk) 04:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe the tone right now is a bit better, however still not enough to take the infobox out. Example of tone problems that are still in the section is the initial sentence: Throughout time, many of history's greatest minds have contemplated the conscious and subconscious relationship with the physical brain or the last sentence: In addition to the philosophical questions, the relationship between mind and brain involves a number of scientific questions that fall into the realm of cognitive neuroscience: What is the detailed relationship between thought and brain activity? What are the mechanisms by which drugs influence thought? What is consciousness, in physical terms, and what are the neural correlates of consciousness?. However as Loie says this may have introduced mistakes in the article (although some of them were already in the article). Just to make the point the first paragraph sasys: Throughout time, many of history's greatest minds have contemplated the conscious and subconscious relationship with the physical brain by experimenting with drugs and measuring the effects[75] These studies have produced wildly different results and led to the theory of a symbiotic relationship between awareness and the physic brain - with the physical brain being responsible for electrochemical neuronal processes and the mind controlling the mental attributes like beliefs, desires, and perceptions

• many history's greatests minds have experimented with drugs: duvious
• They have used them to contemplate relationship between mind and brain: plainly wrong: they could not know that the effects were to the brain; at most that a phisical entity modified its sensations and mind state.
• Measuring the effects: Effect of drugs is very difficult to measure even in carefully planned experiments right now, very hardly along history
• and have led to a symbiotic theory: implies direct cause and effect: very dubious
• Symbiotic theory: it could be debated that it is the actual belief
• Subconscious: study of subsconscient is very debated, and any way it began in the 19th century

I do not really know which of the versions is better. I would eliminate both and really rethink how and where to rewritte it. Relationship between mind and brain has sense speking about humans, and at most primates; so it should be related to it in the article. At the same time most of it is historical conceptions and should be moved to history... I do not really know how to do it; but anyway a lot more of searching and referencing should be done for this section to be of interest. --Garrondo (talk) 13:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think just getting rid of it is a good option -- most likely it would never come back. I've done a rewrite based on the old version, but making changes that seemed in the spirit of the new version. I didn't feel like I could use the specific material from the new version, for the reasons that Garrondo has explained. I've also boldly removed the tag from the section, but would have no problems with anybody who feels it is still needed putting it back. looie496 (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll get to work on it. I agree with Looie469 that it is relevant to the entry...I also agree that the entire entry is rather sloppy. Tino Georgiou: The Fates (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for originally wording this as I did (it was unnecessarily mean). But the tone is still a problem:

For example: "But does this mean that the brain is the mind? Or only that they are bound together in some intimate way?" Rhetorical questions like this are not appropriate for an encyclopedic entry. If the source indicates that they are bound together in some intimate way, say as much directly: "The most straightforward scientific evidence that there is a strong relationship between them is that numerous drugs, which act directly on the physical substance of the brain, have strong effects on the mind. Some philosophers, such as Patricia Churchland (link to her wiki article), posit that this drug-mind interaction is indicative of an intimate connection between the two, not that the two are the same entity."

It is also important to note that this objection comes from a philosopher and as such is not exactly an appropriate rebuttal to the scientific claim that the mind and brain are the same. The philosophical view gives us perspective, but it should not be portrayed as a legitimate alternative to science.

To expand on what I mean, the section has this sort of tone to it: Science says one thing, but because a large number of philosophers can't begin to imagine how science could be right, we should consider their proposed alternatives as legitimate rebuttals to the science. This sort of statement would be unacceptable in the following application: Science indicates the universe is billions of years old and was brought about by the big bang, but a large number of religious leaders can't imagine how science could be right, we should consider the alternatives as legitimate rebuttals to the science. The consensus of philosophers (if there is a consensus) that thought can't come from the brain even though science says otherwise should not be portrayed as a legitimate criticism of the science, at least no more than intelligent design should be portrayed as a legitimate rebuttal to the big bang.

I'm making some changes based on this. In particular I am removing a number of the specifics concerning Ms. Churchland and Descartes; there is an entire article on the philosophy of mind to discuss their individual beliefs. 63.139.220.200 (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

One thing to bear in mind here is that there is a very large pool of readers who will think that this is by far the most interesting aspect of brains. It's very important for the section to signal that it understands that. It's tricky: the passage should remain "encyclopedic", but it needs some degree of elevation of tone to convey the right attitude. I think you've flattened it a bit too much -- I'll try to reshape your version a bit. I suspect that we may not be able to reach a result that both of us are completely happy with, but maybe we can reach a result we all can live with.

Re Churchland, she is one of relatively few philosphers who are pretty widely respected by scientists -- Dennett is another. Her book "Neurophilosophy" gets most positive reviews from neuroscientists -- that's why she was specially mentioned. looie496 (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Re Go for it! I don't want it to be too flat. The big problems I had were the rhetorical questions that did not indicate who was raising them (leaving it ambiguous if it was the scientists or philosophers who had any doubt as to the nature of the brain/mind problem). Liven it up a bit... just pay due attention to differentiating between the scientist's concerns and the philosopher's and properly attributing who said what. 63.139.220.200 (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

brain size

This section completely lacked summary style and encyclopedic tone. I have greatly summarised it and moved it. Since I have eliminate quite a lot of info I move it here, since it could be of use in the future.

There has been quite a bit of study of the relationships between brain size, body size, and other variables across a wide range of species, largely because the easiest way to study any object is to measure its size. Even for extinct species brain size can be estimated by measuring the cavity inside the skull. The story that emerges, however, is complex.

As might be expected, brain size tends to increase with body size (measured by weight, which is roughly equivalent to volume). The relationship is not a strict proportionality, though: averaging across all orders of mammals, it follows a power law, with an exponent of about 0.75. There are good reasons for expecting a power law: for example, the body-size-to-body-length relationship follows a power law with an exponent of 0.33, and the body-size-to-surface-area relationship a power law with an exponent of 0.67. The explanation for an exponent of 0.75 is not obvious—however it is worth noting that several physiological variables appear to be related to body size by approximately the same exponent, for example, the basal metabolic rate. This power law formula applies to the "average" brain of mammals taken as a whole, but each family (cats, rodents, primates, etc) departs from it to some degree, in a way that generally reflects the overall "sophistication" of behavior. Primates, for a given body size, have brains 5 to 10 times as large as the formula predicts. Predators tend to have relatively larger brains than the animals they prey on; placental mammals (the great majority) have relatively larger brains than marsupials such as the opossum.

When the mammalian brain increases in size, not all parts increase at the same rate. In particular, the larger the brain of a species, the greater the fraction taken up by the cortex. Thus, in the species with the largest brains, most of their volume is filled with cortex: this applies not only to humans, but also to animals such as dolphins, whales, or elephants.

The evolution of homo sapiens over the past two million years has been marked by a steady increase in brain size, but much of it can be accounted for by corresponding increases in body size. There are, however, many departures from the trend that are difficult to explain in a systematic way: in particular, the appearance of modern man about 100,000 years ago was marked by a decrease in body size at the same time as an increase in brain size. Even so, it is notorious that Neanderthals, which went extinct about 40,000 years ago, had larger brains than modern homo sapiens.

Not all investigators are happy with the amount of attention that has been paid to brain size. Roth and Dicke, for example, have argued that factors other than size are more highly correlated with intelligence, such as the number of cortical neurons and the speed of their connections. Moreover they point out that intelligence depends not just on the amount of brain tissue, but on the details of how it is structured.

--Garrondo (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll move this into the brain size article, I guess, but I'll wait until you've paused with this article, because the relevant references should be moved too, and I don't want to ec with you. By the way I approve of most of what you're doing, with the exception of the way you handled the "Brains as biological computers" section, but we can discuss that later. Looie496 (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Today I have a bit of a wikirage: I have work problems and I needed to relax in the afternoon, and I took it with this article. I do not plan to edit so much in it after this, but I felt that with some pruning in its structure it could be much more readable. Regarding the biological computers: I really do not like it where it is right now, since it is too much detail, but I believe that if summarised it could really fit in it. The times when people thought that brain and computer where the same are forgotten and right now it is more a research method (very useful) than anything else. Best regards. --Garrondo (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

<-What has happened is that over time the meaning of the word "computer" has shifted, and most people nowadays take it to mean something very similar to the laptop I am writing this on. In that very specific sense a brain obviously doesn't have much resemblance to a computer. But if you think of a computer in a more general way, as a thing that computes, the story is very different. I could pile up hundreds of high quality sources to document that lots of people still think of brains as computers in that sense. For example, the Abbott and Dayan "Computational Neuroscience" book referenced in this article is 90% about how neurons compute, and only a little about how digital computers are used to study the brain. I feel that it's important for this article to discuss the brain as a thing that computes. Looie496 (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that I have added the material above to the brain size article, and removed the no-longer-needed refs from this one. Looie496 (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Brain: general composition

Hello, I am not a neuroscientist, but I am researching the general composition if a brain. I would like to know what types of fats are involved in the brain's composition, but i have not seen anything on this in the article. I am particularly interested in the emulsion properties of chemicals/fats in the brain and comparing them to the lecithin, an emulsifier, in the yolk of a chicken egg, but given this article I have been unable to do so. In case there is any question, I am experimenting with replacing fox brain with egg yolk in the brain tanning process of a gray fox pelt. Badair (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This topic is way too technical for the article. I'll answer here anyway: most of the fat in brain comes from myelin, which is mainly composed of Galactocerebroside. Looie496 (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Three major schools of thought - Relationship between mind and brain involves a number of scientific questions

"..dualism, materialism, and idealism.." What about late Wittgenstein?

"In addition to the philosophical questions, the relationship between mind and brain involves a number of scientific questions" How so, when neither 'mind', 'thought' nor 'consciousness' are scientific concepts? Those nice science chaps may go off and produce homonymous concepts, but homonymy is not identity. If by 'consciousness' they mean something reducible to talk of brain function, then 'consciousness correlates to brain function' is just a mystified truism, not a discovery.

Dear science chaps, with all due respect - get a life. Science is a useful tool, but a lifeless tool. Realising this may well involve the discomfort of disillusionment, but surely it is better to recognise a lifeless tool - than to be one.

§§§§ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.237.101 (talk) 01:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

number of glial cells

Ugh, this new change is a pain to figure out how to deal with. Normally a single publication such as PMID 19226510 would not be allowed to outweigh community opinion, but J Comp Neurol is a high-quality source and I don't see how we can just ignore it. Still, this article is not specifically devoted to the human brain, so at least the statement there needs to be made more general -- but I don't personally know enough about glial cells to know how to do it. I'm inclined to fuzz the statement out as something like "...and comparable numbers of glial cells". Any thoughts? Looie496 (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

EEG

The section Electrophysiology does not mention the technique of electroencephalography to record large electric potentials outside the scalp that arise from synchronous activity of a large number of neurons. This technique is well established and widely used. A reference to EEG (and MEG) in this section seems reasonable TjeerdB (talk) 07:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That technique is used almost exclusively in humans, and therefore is discussed in human brain, along with MEG. Looie496 (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Good information. But...confusing.

Wikepeditor Wikepeditor (talk) 03:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Hello. This article has good information, but it is confusing. It is supposed to be about brains in general but it often talks about human brains specifically. For example, in the "Effects of damage and disease section" it says "Even though it is protected by the skull and meninges, surrounded by cerebrospinal fluid, and isolated from the bloodstream by the blood-brain barrier, the delicate nature of the brain makes it vulnerable to numerous diseases and several types of damage." I must admit, I am not an expert at this, but would it be a good idea to include the subsections such as Bilaterians, Vertebrates, Invertebrates, Mammals,Primates including humans or would it be a good idea to look at overall patterns? Eg. "All vertebrates have some sort of protection of the brain from diseases and damage...For example, the human brain is protected by the skull and meninges, surrounded by cerebrospinal fluid, and isolated from the bloodstream by the blood-brain barrier. However the delicate nature of the brains of vertebrates make it susceptible to numerous diseases and several types of damage."

This is a tricky thing to handle. The majority of readers are a lot more interested in the human brain than in the brains of other species -- the interest scale goes roughly human-primate-mammal-vertebrate-animal. I've tried to exploit that by illustrating general points in terms of the species readers are likely to be most interested in. The sentence you quoted, for example, does apply to all vertebrates. I'm not saying that the current structure is ideal, and I'm definitely open to the changes you have been making -- just trying to explain the rationale for the current organization. As I see it, this article should describe features of the human brain that it shares; only features that are human-only should go into the "human brain" article (and there are tons of them). But absolutely anything that looks confusing needs to be fixed. Looie496 (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

missing illustration?

The last paragraph of the section Microscopic structure refers to an "illustration on the right" which seems to have gone missing. Either the image should be re-added, or the reference to it should be removed. - Hordaland (talk) 00:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeeks, you are right! I've looked back through the page history, and it wasn't deleted by mistake any time recently. I'll correct the text. Thanks for finding that! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

unclear sentence?

In the section Brain energy consumption, I find the sentence below to be difficult to understand. Perhaps the topic can be better explained?

• The demands of the brain limit its size in some species, such as bats.[78]

- Hordaland (talk) 11:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. The source cited seems to be talking about limiting body weight in order to fly. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Brain in a vat

For fear of edit warring, I want to explain here why I disagree with another editor about putting a cartoon of the Brain in a vat hypothesis here. First, the image is really cartoonish and the figure legend is amateurish in that it has spelling mistakes (which of course could be corrected if there were no other issues). More substantively, the scenario depicted is purely hypothetical (and, if taken literally, physiologically impossible, although I realize that it is not intended to be taken literally). Looking at the main page from which it is taken, it does not strike me as notable enough to be included in a general article about the brain, at least not as a figure without explanation in the text. Putting it here seems to me to go against WP:UNDUE. I probably would not object to a sourced sentence of text within the section, but the figure seems inappropriate to me. What do other editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't have terribly strong feelings but I sort of like it, actually, and it's certainly a concept that has been widely discussed. The figure legend would of course have to be fixed, but that's no problem. What I like is that it makes a key point about the relationship between brain and mind come through very vividly. What would you think about asking for an "independent opinion" from the GA reviewer, or perhaps at the WikiProject Neuroscience talk page? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Woops, now I have to take back what I just said on your talk page (just kidding!). Yes, more opinions would be the way to go. That's why I started this thread, after all. But might it be better, instead, to just put a sentence into the text, blue-linked to the main page on the topic? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Wording of two sentences

Can we discuss the wording of a couple of sentences? One that used to say "The most important biological function of the brain is to generate behaviors that promote the welfare of an animal" was changed to "The most important biological function of the brain is to manage and control the functions and actions of an animal". I dislike this new wording because (1) "manage and control" is redundant, (2) "function .. is to manage and control ... functions" is awkward, (3) "functions and actions" is vague, (4) the new wording leaves out the crucial point that the brain's output is useful to the animal. What is the problem with the previous version? The same issues arise with the other edit involved here. Looie496 (talk) 02:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the wording in your points 1 & 2 is not good at all. "Functions and actions" may need to be vague to avoid a long list which would never be complete?

But the specific point "the brain's output is useful to the animal" is why I'm reacting. It is not true in many cases where an animal's functions and actions benefit its group or the species, rather than the individual. Example: some mothers fight to the death to protect their offspring, which is not beneficial to the mother. - Hordaland (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I want to emphasize again that I actually do not feel at all strongly about the issue. My thinking at the time diff was that "welfare" and "genetic fitness" were a bit dubious, welfare because it seems to me to connote animal welfare, and genetic fitness because it sounds rather eugenic, and both of these do lead to the issue that Hordaland just described. Thinking about it more, I realize that the bigger issue for me (relatively speaking, not that it's all that big!) is the use of the word "promotes": I don't really think the brain (or the behavior that it generates) is in the business of promoting anything (although I realize as I type this that we could have quite a philosophical debate about that). On the other hand, I take Looie's point about the similarity between functions and actions (although I suppose the former can refer to autonomic functions while the latter can refer to voluntary actions), and I agree that "manage and control" is completely unnecessary. Bottom line: maybe we have found that both wordings leave something to be desired. Would it perhaps be preferable to find a worthy quote or two from an RS, and quote it directly instead of synthesizing something? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

A nice quote would be great if somebody can find one. In the meantime, how about, "the biological function of the brain is to control the muscles and internal organs of the body"? Looie496 (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, fine, go for it! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I found when I tried it that it didn't quite work in that form, so I revised it a bit, and then I found I had to make a few changes in the rest of the paragraph to make it flow. Anyway, I hope it is acceptable now. Looie496 (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I tweaked it a little more, no big deal. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

typical neuron picture

Why does it have Schwann cells instead of oligodendrocytes? Isn't that some PNS neuron type you're depicting? Narayanese (talk) 14:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a very good point. It really should be changed to oligodendrocyte. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, except that the way the nucleus is drawn doesn't represent what an oligo looks like. I suppose this was intended to be a somatic motor neuron; maybe it would be best to say that explicitly. Looie496 (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess so. Too bad, since this is Brain. Saying that explicitly seems like the best thing until a better image becomes available. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Opening photo

Why not to replace the chimp's brain photo with a human one? The chimp's one is too shocking to my opinion.--Gilisa (talk) 08:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Because that would belong nicely on the human brain page. Personally I don't find a photo of either shocking, but why is a chimp's brain more shocking than a human one? GyroMagician (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Because it didn't contribute it willingly to science, you can guess how it was taken out.--Gilisa (talk) 08:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I see. I don't really want to get into a discussion of the ethics of animal testing (as talk pages are not meant as general discussion pages), but if we are to remove the brain image, we should also remove most of the detail from this article for the same reason. I think removing the image while using results based heavily on animal-based studies would be dishonest, no? GyroMagician (talk) 10:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You made a point. But the fact is that the article focus is on human brain (i.e., the large part is on human brain), right? I think that human brain would not only better fit to the article (and it's not the first reason for which I posted here) but it would also be of better taste (and while we have no good alternative to animal models, we do have good alternatives to this photo..). You don't must agree on it, it's just a proposal. Best--Gilisa (talk) 10:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

But it doesn't focus on the human brain - as stated in the first line of the article, which points readers to the human brain page, if that is what they're looking for. This article tries very hard to be as general as possible, covering insects to humans. GyroMagician (talk) 11:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe the opening photo is a very interesting one, aesthethically (from my point of view) is much better than most pictures depicting a brain, and the fact that it is from a chimpanze for me is a plus: The truth is that most of what we know is thanks to animal experimentation. I would leave as it is now.--Garrondo (talk) 11:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Much of the knowledge come from animal experiments -however, much come from humans as well (including single cel recordings in vivo and in vitro). As for non human primate models-most research is on Macaque monlies, whose brain is not very aesthethic, if the reason is experimental importance we should use rat or cat or Macaque brain. If it's aesthethics we should human or dolphin brain.--Gilisa (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't really mind what sort of brain it is, except human, for the reasons described above. I also think it is important not to shy away from showing an animal brain, as most of our knowledge comes from animal experiments. Beyond that, cat/rat/macaque - all are fine. But I agree with Garrondo that the chimp brain is aesthetically a very good image. I don't see any reason to change it, unless you have something better. GyroMagician (talk) 12:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with GyroMagician and Garrondo. I think that a reader coming to a page about "brain" would reasonably expect to find an image of a brain, and not be upset by it, and this image is not particularly graphic as these things go. In fact, I think the way it appears, in an old-fashioned museum-style display, makes it look a bit historical, thereby mitigating the impression that current science might have done something lurid. (Personally, I think the graphic image problem is currently much worse at pages about the animal rights movement and groups that belong to it.) --Tryptofish (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me just add a note that the existing image was the result of a back-and-forth during the last FA review. I don't really have strong feelings about it; it's hard to find a better picture in Commons. What I would really like is to have a picture like this -- the article did once upon a time, but it was deleted due to licensing concerns. Looie496 (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Now that's a cool picture! GyroMagician (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Now, that's a much better photo (and apparently present at any neuroscience lab I seen), if we just can get it (or similar) licenced I guess that it could make a good alternative. Anyway, aesthethicly the picture we have now (which I suggested to replace) is very beautiful, no argue on that.--Gilisa (talk) 09:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That is a great image, but even if it was correctly licensed I think I would use it in the mammals subsection of the macroscopic structure section. Lead images from my point of view have to be catching more than informative, and the one we have probably is.--Garrondo (talk) 09:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

OK.--Gilisa (talk) 15:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Baboshed's contributions

The brain (or better encephalon) is the center of the nervous system in all vertebrate, and most invertebrate, animals.

...

The most straightforward scientific evidence that there is a strong relationship between the physical brain matter and the mind is the impact physical alterations to the brain have on the mind, such as with traumatic brain injury and psychoactive drug use. Actually that appears non sure in many cases, where the mind's problems are not reducible to brain.

I undid these. They may be valuable, but need explanation and citations. Anthony (talk) 10:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Anthony's edit was appropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe close to FA?

I am thinking that this article is getting close to a level that might justify an FA nom. There are a few possible areas of improvement -- the ones that occur to me are: (1) adding a bit more material about the relationship between brain and mind, including a paragraph in the lead, (2) reducing the "How it is studied" section by moving some material into the Neuroscience article, and (3) filling in the missing zone of the History section. Does anybody else have opinions on this? Looie496 (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Although I know that an article such as "brain" is really hard to take to FA I still feel that it is quite far from being ready. Most information now in the article is in very good shape, but there is a lot of information still left. Some of them are:

• The development section talks in a general way about migration of neurons but does not talk at all about how the brain develops: its stages, its parts... It should be important at least to summarize brain development in mammals.
• There is no comment on how neurons communicate
• I am not sure if the "functions section" has complete sense: The neurotransmitter system is not properly a system but a general property of the brain. Maybe it could be moved to a specific section on neuronal transmission which includes basic properties of synapses and neurotransmitters.
• Brain energy consumption is neither a function: I do not know where it could fit, but not really here
• The superior cognitive functions such as the executive system or language are not mentioned in the functions section. Maybe an specific subsection could be created for them. Even if they (or mostly) only appear in humans their importance deserves mention.
• The arousal system should talk about more than sleep-awake cycle. No mention is done about attention.
• I agree that how it is studied should be summarized.

I hope that at some point this great article becomes a FA, but I believe its time has not come yet.--Garrondo (talk) 08:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It has been extraordinarily difficult all through this to get feedback based on content as opposed to form, and that's very helpful. I am inclined to think that the superior cognitive functions should stay in human brain for reasons of space if nothing else, but the other points make a lot of sense and seem addressable. The general concept behind that "Functions" section was that it would correspond to "Physiology" -- that word seems a bit jargony, but I wonder if it should be used anyway. Looie496 (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say phisiology is a better title. Maybe a solution is to write an introductory line to the section with a link to phisiology. Although I do not collaborate in the writing of the article I follow its development quite closely. If at some point you feel that you need a second opinion again you can count on me. Regards.--Garrondo (talk) 11:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

the Brain-mind problem is not addressed sufficiently and the embodied mind is not discussed in any length. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.87.240 (talk) 06:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Brain Type

The brain is a vertabrate and an invertabrate. It is mostly invertabrate. The brain is the center of the nervous system. Please add more to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.72.192.194 (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying. Looie496 (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Grossly misleading / incomplete paragraph in intro

"Methods of observation such as EEG recording and functional brain imaging tell us that brain operations are highly organized, but these methods do not have the resolution to reveal the activity of individual neurons.[7]"

True enough, but failing to mention single unit recording is grossly misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.253.210.29 (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. I've removed the sentence as a temporary fix, but it really needs more work. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, I expanded the sentence to include single units, but it could probably still use some more work. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the reason I wrote it that way is that single unit recording doesn't really tell us how brain operations are organized, because it only shows us one unit at a time. We don't really have good techniques for showing the relationships between individual neurons. (I'm aware of multi-single-unit recording, in fact most of my own work has used it, but it has major limitations.) Anyway, I accept that the passage needed work, just wanted to explain the thinking. This is a quick response; I'll take another look at the sentence. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Does the brain get tired?

Not really clear from article, I see glucose is needed for energy, but apart from that does the brain get fatigued like a muscle?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.14.106 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 24 April 2010

I've seen research on the effects of low blood glucose on brain function, but I'm not really up to speed on the story. I can tell you that the brain clearly doesn't get fatigued in the same way a muscle does, because it uses glucose and ATP in a much more indirect way -- but that's about all I feel able to say. Looie496 (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't resist commenting facetiously that mine does, when I make too many edits to Wikipedia! OK, seriously, the way I would think about the question is, in part, in terms of glucose/energy depletion, and, in part, in terms of sleep. As for glucose, I agree with what Looie said, and I would add that I am unaware of any evidence that heavy "use" of the brain, like thinking hard for a long time and so forth, leads to any measurable depletion of the available glucose supply. There's normally always enough glucose to maintain prolonged brain activity, and glucose availability is unlikely to be rate-limiting, except in instances of starvation or malnutrition. So, in that sense, the brain does not so much get tired as get hungry. As for the second point, sleep, it clearly is the case that (with some comparative species caveats) sleep is periodically required for healthy brain function, and sleep deprivation is harmful (reversibly) to human brain functionality. But is that the brain getting tired, or the person getting tired? "Getting tired" is a phrase we use to describe a human experience, and it's philosophically problematic to attribute the experience to just the organ that mediates it: mediating an experience is not quite the same thing as experiencing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

interaction brain mind

The duality of brain and mind, and the interaction between them, can be described correctly only when the observer knows the truth about the law of the duality applicable to his external and internal worlds. In its application to the human observer the law manifests itself as two space times and the interaction between them. The two are the material and the immaterial worlds. Brains are in the material space time and minds are in the immaterial world. Each of the two components is again a duality. Brain is a static unit of matter acting as the container of the dynamism of electromagnetism. Individual cells in the brain are pre-programmed to receive variable electromagnetic impulses coming from the outside. Excess of the energy is distributed to the logically connected cells to form a field which acts as a symbol. Mind is the immaterial container of memory and of the static unit of ‘self’ of the observer who is called the ‘soul’. The ‘self’ is motivated by the lack of equilibrium. It can change its position within the memory by bringing into the consciousness in the ‘now’ the ‘truths’, which describe the observed unit. The ‘self’ cannot observe individual truths of the description because it can limit only one unit at a time. To be able to observe the description, called the ‘meaning’, the observer gives a ‘name’ to the synthesis of the description. The ‘name’, is a material or immaterial ‘symbol’ acting as the key which opens access to the description of the observed truth. The description of the symbol is not observed. Contact between the material and the immaterial space times, is through the electromagnetic field which acts as the material symbol motivating the ‘self’ through emotion. At the border between the material and the immaterial spaces velocity of rotation of gravitons is static as seen from the centre of observation. The gravitons can be motivated from either side of the border by different velocities of rotation of the adjoining gravitons. The velocity of rotation can increase or decrease with the result that rotation is transferred from one medium to the other. The direction of motivating energy is reversed when ‘meaning’ creates electromagnetic symbol in the brain. KK (92.24.108.65 (talk) 11:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC))

Material on the talk page should be directed toward improving the article, and material can only be used in the article if it has previously been published in a reputable source such as an academic journal. In other words, the paragraph above does not really belong here. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Looie496...would you be able to write a new article if you were allowed to use only that which alreasdy exists in your computer? KK (89.243.217.254 (talk) 10:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC))

Sorry, but those are the rules. This is an encyclopedia which by definition try to summarize existing knowledge, not the place to create new knowledege. As Looie says your ideas would have to be published in other place, reach the point when they are considered notable, and only then they will have a place here. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I have just responded on your Talk page. You can answer me there, if you like, I've put your talk page on my Wikipedia watch list. Anthony (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)