Talk:Brain/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

In the Brain article under "Microscopic Structure" there is an illustration showing Schwann cells as the cells forming myelin along the axons. As I understand, in the brain, it's oligodendrocytes that form the myelin. Schwann cells are the glia that form the myelin for the rest of the body. If this is correct, I wonder if this illustration might be deleted and/or changed?

Tigers2B14.226.156.205 (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.226.156.205 (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Second that. "Unlike peripheral nerves, they have no Schwann cells to guide and support them" Anthony (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this has come up before. It would be a shame to delete the image (actually an image map), but changing it would make other articles that use it inaccurate. Maybe the right solution is to make a second "brain neuron" template that substitutes oligodendrocyte for Schwann cell. That would be pretty easy to do. Looie496 (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you know how to do it Looie496? I'm hopeless at this stuff. Or is there some project full of helpful image editors? I encountered this guy the other day who obviously has the ability but I've already extracted one favor. Anthony (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can do it in a couple of minutes. I hold back only because I generally don't like duplicating things to make small changes, but if we agree that's what we want, I'll be happy to do it. Looie496 (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

We agree. Anthony (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Nuts -- I created Template:Brain neuron map, but then I remembered the real problem, which is that those cells actually don't look like oligos. An oligo has its cell body away from the axon and generates multiple myelin sheaths that arise from filaments. Not sure what to do about that now. Looie496 (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I've left a request here Maybe someone there will be able to concoct something for us. Meanwhile, should we delete that Schwann cell illustration from the article? Anthony (talk) 08:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Andrew c has kindly adapted a Schwann cell/myelin sheath image for us

1. both instances of "(Schwann cell)"
2. "Nucleus", and
3. the little yellow Schwann cell soma

leaving everything else, including "Myelin Sheath". Anything else? Anthony (talk) 10:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Anthony for getting this underway. I agree with you that this is an improvement. I also agree about deleting "Schwann cell". I don't really care either way about the nucleus, and that nucleus is the only thing I see that is yellow. However, I would add another point: the oligodendrocyte (now magenta) should be the same blue color as the myelin, since that is the cell from which the myelin extends. I'll make a comment there myself; I hope you don't mind. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed about the color. Anthony (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Woops, I was wrong and you were right about the yellow. The nuclei are in the cell body, not in multiples in each myelin wrap. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Is that picture alright up there while we discuss it? Anthony (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see the cell body too. This is the image Andrew is working off. Should we ask him to include the cell body? Anthony (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure. The image on the page now does emphasize the neuron, rather than the myelinated axon. I guess it depends on what we want to emphasize. There would be questions as to how much nuclear detail to include, and also, about how much to show of the axon terminal and synapse at the other end. If we do go that way, we might want to omit the pale gray neurons in the background. Alternatively, we might use the picture the way it is, along with one or more other images for the other parts. Do we already have a good image of the cell body? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking: the changes Andrew and Narayanese (see below) have made; the changes we have proposed; and include the cell body. That gives us a complete CNS neuron. Anthony (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Above is LadyofHats' original that Andrew and Narayanese are working from

Above is Narayanese's version

I changed it a bit (File:Neuron with oligodendrocyte and myelin sheath-2.svg). It's hard to enough 'arms' for the oligodendrocyte. Narayanese (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Anthony (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! I think I like this version too. I'm not sure, however, how much detail we need about the intracellular organelles. I think a case can be made that it would be helpful to make it less busy, and many of the organelles are not neuron-specific. Also, as per earlier discussion, we would have to get rid of "Schwann cells", perhaps just changing them to "Oligodendrocyte". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It is busy. We can do without the synapse inset; and most of the detail in the cell body probably doesn't need labeling. I like Narayanese's color change, but I'd prefer the oligodendtocyte to be more obviously wrapped around the neuron's axon - though that is plain from the inset, I guess. Anthony (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I know you told me to wait for further discussion, but I couldn't help myself. I took a number of suggestions into consideration, and made alterations to my first draft, such as color, labels, cropping, and making the sheath look like it is wrapping more. -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice. Thank you Andrew c. We're still waiting for a couple of other editors to chime in. This is such an improvement. Anthony (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I like it too. I'm still not sure what to think about the neuron cell body in the version above that shows it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, responding to my own question!, the section of the page this would illustrate is really mostly about the interaction between neurons and glia, rather than about the fine structure of neurons themselves. That being the case, it might be best to use Andrew's newest version, appropriately captioned, and not include the neuronal soma in the image. In addition, if we want to better illustrate neuronal shapes, we could use something like File:Pyramidal hippocampal neuron 40x.jpg or File:Mouse cingulate cortex neurons.jpg. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclining to your view. Would really like to hear Looie496's thoughts before we settle, though. Anthony (talk) 07:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, I'd want to hear from him too. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Should we go ahead now? Are you OK with Andrew's last version? I'd like to see the little yellow nuclei in each myelen sheath gone, as per Narayanese's version, and the red strands in the bottom left corner are a bit disracting. Any thoughts about a caption? Anthony (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would say go for it! I agree exactly with the corrections you described here, and with that, it should be fine. And thanks so much to both Andrew and Narayanese!! As for captioning, it should (of course) replace the image currently in the "Microscopic structure" section, and should be formatted as a thumbnail, as it is, without any text at the top, unlike the top-labeling of the image that is there now. We can work on the thumbnail caption when it's on the page, but I would think it would be something like "Oligodendrocytes are glial cells that form myelin sheaths around the axons of brain neurons." or something like that. I'd be happy to add a second image from among the two I listed just above—any preferences between them? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I've passed that to the illustration workshop. And I think I prefer the hippocampal neuron, but either is fine with me. Anthony (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

All good! Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I've made the few minor edits mentioned above (sorry I didn't do it sooner, was out of town). If this is a final version that users are going to use, I can move it to a different filename if you want on Commons. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've asked Andrew to choose an appropriate file name and let us know here. Anthony (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I enthusiastically second what Anthony said at the Graphics Lab page: brilliant! When we get that image on this page, it will really be an outstanding improvement. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Neuron with oligodendrocyte and myelin sheath.svg is the file name, I just merged my drafts together into one location. I just realized now, that's going to mess up the discussion above a little bit, but hopefully that isn't an issue. I thought the first file name was descriptive and adequate. Hope you do as well. Any more concerns or changes, feel free to contact me. -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added it to the page. Thanks everyone! --Tryptofish (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is pretty well established, based on single-unit studies that show visual responsiveness, that more than half the primate neocortex (not brain) is dedicated to vision. See, for example:

Sereno, M.I., A.M. Dale, J.B. Reppas, K.K. Kwong, J.W. Belliveau, T.J. Brady, B.R. Rosen, and R.B.H. Tootell (1995) Borders of multiple visual areas in human revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging. Science 268:889-893. [1]

Where they state "Over half of the neocortex in non-human primates is occupied by visual areas. At least 25 visual areas beyond the primary visual cortex (V1) have been identified with a combination of microelectrode mapping, tracer injections, histological stains, and functional studies (1)." Their references for this claim are:

M.I. Sereno and J.M. Allman, in The Neural Basis of Visual Function, A.G. Leventhal Ed.(Macmillan, London, 1991), pp. 160-172

J.H. Kaas and L.A. Krubitzer, Neuroanatomy of Visual Pathways and their Retinotopic Organization, B. Dreher and S.R. Robinson Eds. (Macmillan, London, 1991), pp. 302-359

D.J. Felleman and D.C. Van Essen, Cereb. Cortex 1, 1 (1991)

M.G.P. Rosa, J.G. Soares, M. Fiorani Jr, R. Gattass, Vis. Neurosci. 10, 827 (1993).

In humans, due to the increase in the size of the parietal and pre-frontal cortex, this number is probably lower than in our primate cousins. See, for example, for the cross-species comparisons

Van Essen, D.C. Lewis, J.W,. Drury, H.A., Hadjikhani, N., Tootell, R.B., Bakircioglu, M. and Miller, M.I. (2001) Mapping visual cortex in monkeys and humans using surface-based atlases. Vision Research 41: 1359-1378. [2]

Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, much better now. There's a big difference between half of the brain and half of the neocortex. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure no problem... I'm renaming this section because it's worth mentioning that the references here, especially by people like Sereno, Felleman, Kaas, etc. are also good refs for the differential expansion of the frontal cortex in humans, relative to our other great ape/primate ancestors. I was going to add the Van Essen paper that I've cited above for the frontal cortex expansion, but there are probably other citations that would be good too (also, I think my ref format was incorrect for this page, but a badly formatted ref is better than none at all). Others who would be relevant to look at here are Patricia Goldman-Rakic, Joaquin Fuster (see his book: The Prefrontal Cortex 978-0123736444) and others who study the function of the pre-frontal cortex.

There is some debate about the degree to which human frontal cortex differs from other great apes (see, Semendeferi, K., Lu, A., Schenker, N., and H. Damasio. 2002. Humans and great apes share a large frontal cortex. Nature Neuroscience. 5:272-276.) but there is little doubt that human frontal cortex is larger than in macaques. Another good, general source for these types of things would be

ISBN 978-0878938209. Cheers, Edhubbard (talk

) 21:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This article should mention the use of brains as a food (e.g. fried lambs' brains), the cultures/cuisines in which this is done, and the pros and cons (pros: good source of nutrition; cons: risk of prion diseases), etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.168.39 (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

We have a separate article for that,

brain (food). Looie496 (talk

) 06:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no link from this article to

brain (food) article. Someone should add one. --124.176.168.39 (talk

) 22:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It is linked to from

brain (food) article. Looie496 (talk

) 23:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I overlooked it in my quick perusal of the article but does it say what percentage of the brain is made out of fat and cholesterol? I seem to recall reading somewhere that it has been recently found that the brain manufactures its own food or something to that effect so it doesn't rely only on the nutrients that can pass through the blood-brain barrier. Is that true and should it be included in the article? Lambanog (talk) 08:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not an area I know a lot about, but my understanding is that the brain derives energy from glucose, not fat. There is a lot of fat and cholesterol in the brain (as our

myelin sheaths that electrically insulate neurons and axons. Looie496 (talk

) 16:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's basically true. In fact, the reliance of the brain on glucose derives from the inability of many other nutrients/precursors to cross the blood-brain barrier, and brain lipids really do not play a major role in energy metabolism. The brain does have a higher lipid concentration than other tissues in the body, and this is why fat-soluble compounds tend to accumulate in the brain. Thus, almost all drugs that are directed to the central nervous system are fat-soluble.

In terms of adding something to the page, I think Brain#Brain energy consumption is probably the place to do it. We could broaden it a bit, to begin with some description of chemical content and the significance of that content. Should we? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay it doesn't manufacture its own energy but does manufacture its own cholesterol. Thanks for clarifying that for me. As for the article...this is all brain surgery to me. Lambanog (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not entirely sure as to whether glucose can be converted to cholesterol. I tried to dance around that in my answer above. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I've started Evolution of the brain. I don't have permission to edit this article- can someone link it in for me? It's still a WIP, and I plan to add things over the next few days. Thanks. Vermillion trade (talk) 00:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Great, I think that will be a very useful article. Perhaps it should progress a little further before adding links to it, though. Once your account has existed for 10 days and made a total of 10 edits, you will be "autoconfirmed" and able to edit the

evolution of the human brain or something of that sort. Anyway, have fun! Looie496 (talk

) 01:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Everyone, I have some really interesting research-work to share here. Please have a look the this URl here < Soulmates and Consciousness>. Please have a look at the Consciousness section over there. The research-work of Jody A. Long & Berkovich, concludes: "the brain is more of an accessing unit much like a radio receiver. The actual storage place is somewhere else, and NDEs would strongly suggest that place is the consciousness that survives the body." <reference: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/experts101.html & Ornstein, R. (1991) The Evolution of Consciousness, The Origins of the Way We Think, Simon & Schuster, New York NY > Thanks! Sincerely: Abstruce (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. However, I don't really think we should add it to the page, per

WP:UNDUE. --Tryptofish (talk

) 22:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Jody A Long: Please follow this link < http://www.near-death.com/experiences/experts10.html > to know more about Her.

• Robert E. Ornstein (Ph.D. from Stanford University): Please have a look here < http://www.robertornstein.com/ >. For his significant research-work, He has been awarded by the American Psychological Association and UNESCO. He has also been awarded American Institutes for Research Creative Talent Award, UNESCO award for Best Contribution to Psychology, and the American Psychological Foundation Media Award. He's been a faculty at University of California Medical Center and Stanford University. Also, the founder of Institute for the Study of Human Knowledge. The author of the book: The Evolution of Consciousness, The Origins of the Way We Think.

• Simon Berkovich: He's a faculty at the Engineering and Applied Science department of the George Washington University. I request You to please atleast once have a look at the links mentioned below to be aware of His research work. I think You may not have visisted them, I just guess!

1. http://www.nderf.org/Berkovich.htm
2. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0111093
3. http://www.seas.gwu.edu/~berkov/Theory.htm
4. http://www.seas.gwu.edu/~berkov/Experiment.htm

It's a pleasure to be in touch with You, and I request You to please take this discussion in a healthy manner. I think My query is quite reasonable. Thanks! Sincerely: Abstruce ^(Talk) 18:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Robert Ornstein is undoubtedly a reputable source, although many of his views are controversial, but he isn't the source for the statements above. Neither Long nor Berkovich would be considered strong sources for a Wikipedia article about the brain. Basically you are advocating a discussion of

substance dualism. I don't see this article as the proper place for that, although the fact that many people believe in it might justify giving some sort of pointer to a more closely related article such as Philosophy of mind. Looie496 (talk

) 23:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Volume transmission (synapses) redirects here. This article does not mention this topic. I think volume transmission should redirect to the page Neuromodulation. I don't know how to change this so perhaps someone else could. John 92.236.103.241 (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. [3] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I started adding citations to unsourced claims, but it is dawning on me that a lot of these claims are based on sources earlier in the same paragraph. There are a number of sources I can't access but, from their titles, it seems highly likely some of the claims following the citation are also attributable to them. If you know of any instances of this, can I suggest moving such citations to the end of the text they support? I've done it for a couple that I could access. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You're right, but unfortunately I have found that the approach you suggest doesn't work. The only way to make it totally obvious that all sentences are sourced is to put a ref on every sentence -- something I am very reluctant to do. Looie496 (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I always assume if there's one citation after a string of sentences, it's the source for all assertions after the last citation, and if a paragraph has one citation at the end, it's the source for all the assertions in the paragraph. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I would be happy with that, but when I used to do it that way people complained, so I'd like to have some evidence that other editors feel the same way that you do. Looie496 (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

We've made it pretty clear at FAC. Let's see what they have to say. I reckon, when you hover your mouse over a footnote marker (^[23]), it should highlight the text it supports. That must be doable. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I was just thinking about this issue. It is such a large article and so many sentences are missing citations, even for rather simple material, it seems like there must be a better way to do the citations. Citing ever line would take a lifetime but certainly more information should be clearly cited for reference. It is really easy to get inaccurate information when claims aren't cited properly. After all, the article is supposed to be informative, and if it becomes inaccurate through misunderstandings or misinformation it does little good. I might try to find a current textbook to fill in some of the basic information. Cmulick (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Nothing about the left-right hemisphere reason/logic-creative functions here? 84.215.39.183 (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The great bulk of information about that is specific to humans, so it is covered in the human brain article. Looie496 (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that in the section on vertebrate anatomy, the

I guess it's because the third paragraph of the text discusses it, as the

rhombencephalon, etc., as bullet points, either in that list or in a separate list. --Tryptofish (talk

) 00:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

However, what makes this deserving of its own article is where we win, which is OUR brains capacity for conciousness, intelligence, and the existence of the mind. Components powerful enough to allow dominance of the human species despite inferiority in our anatomy comparatively to other species, and in truth should be the main focus here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.29.0 (talk • contribs) 19:39, June 14, 2012‎

You raise an issue that, of course, does indeed interest neuroscientists. However, there's a limit to how much we really could implement the changes to this article that you propose. There's little point in a boastful paragraph about how great the human species is. It wouldn't really be encyclopedic. We have to follow

WP:NOR. That means that we have to have source material about scientific research that would actually address where consciousness and intelligence come from in the human brain. And that source material does not exist, because nobody really knows the answer. --Tryptofish (talk

) 19:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me just say that although I wrote most of this article, I did not write that sentence, and I don't like it, and I don't really think it adds anything to the paragraph. I left it alone after it was added because I don't want to give the appearance of "own"ing this article, but I would be happy if something was done with it. Looie496 (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Now I understand much better what the issues are, specifically with respect to this page. I don't have immediate access to the source cited for that sentence, unfortunately. But how about editing the undefined aspects out of that paragraph (and we can blame the edits on me, rather than on Looie!)? In the sentence before it, we could change (I'm not sure how...) the part about "In the early part of psychology,...". Early "part"? Blech! I'd like the sentence to read something like "Previously, the mind was thought to be separate from the brain.", or "Prior to modern-day neuroscience, the mind was thought to be separate from the brain.", or maybe best "Prior to [date], the mind was thought to be separate from the brain." Can we come up with a time period (example: prior to the twentieth century), that is supported by sources? If so, I think we could do that, and then delete the sentence right after it, which is the sentence that we have been discussing. I think the paragraph would flow just fine that way (does everyone else agree?), and I'd just as soon delete the unprovable parts. Thoughts? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I made a bold edit. Is that an improvement? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, to me at least -- I like it a lot better that way. Looie496 (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, this eases it up somewhat, though it still says, “[T]he brain . . . forms the physical structure that generates the mind,” implying that it has been determined. I asked first because I didn't want to make it look as if I'm meddling with the article. I mean, this is a very good article as it is, so I don't want to change anything. I'll leave it to the specialists. I see that the two of you are quite active on this page, and Looie496, if you wrote this article, then I must remark, you sir or madam did an excellent job! Everything Is Numbers (talk) 04:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

There are of course plenty of people who think that the mind is independent of the brain, but that is what Wikipedia calls a "fringe theory". I'm male, for what it's worth; and thanks for the compliment. Looie496 (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

+1 about Looie's excellent work on this page. About the first sentence of the paragraph, the one that still says "forms the physical structure that generates the mind", my hope is that the sentence does not stand in isolation, but can be better understood in terms of nuance by reading the (revised) paragraph in its entirety. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That's it. Ignorance. It's the vice of the simple people and the problem with populist democracy. I will not trust your word if you tell me you haven't noticed the sheer multitude of people subscribing to the Democritean idea of the heart as the source of emotion. Some of them go as far as to say that supposed personality changes after heart transplanation prove their point! With this rant I'm diverting from discussion of the article itself, so I'll stop now. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm unsure what you mean by that, but I trust we are OK with the page content. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. :) Everything Is Numbers (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not an uncontroversial subject among laypersons. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 02:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It depends what you're looking for. (I'm speaking as a non-layperson.) On the one hand, it's kind of common sense that it's not, for example, in the gall bladder. On the other hand, I don't mean to make light of the question, because it's certainly been a serious subject of philosophical debate for centuries. The problem, from a neuroscientific point of view, is that you aren't going to find scientific studies saying: here is the place in the brain where the mind exists. It's just not the kind of thing that scientists have a way of defining. There's a ton of evidence, though, that various specific things we associate with "mindfulness" go away when brain function goes away. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The article

dualism (philosophy of mind) is where that issue is dealt with most comprehensively. Looie496 (talk

) 21:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a good pointer. (I was trying to think what the best page would be, and I didn't come up with it.) I've added a link to it, at the top of the "Functions" section. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I regret that I didn't specify this earlier. I was referring to the third paragraph of the introduction, where the brain-mind relationship is addressed. The crucial point is “However, after early scientists conducted experiments it was determined that the mind was a component of a functioning brain...” One source is cited, but I was hoping that additional sources could be added to back up the statement. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 03:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

    How can mind and brain be the identity if mind is in the immaterial space time and brain is in the material space time? You will never know until you know the correct cosmology. (178.43.110.119 (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC))

Technically, flies don't have brains. In a broad term they may be described as such, but a real brain is only present with Cephalochordata and further, more complex organisms. Anything below this group - including the fruit fly - has a collection of cerebral ganglia. This does not constitute a brain, which is an incredibly complex organ with differentiated areas which bears a basic structure resemblance compared to our, more complex brain. Granted, there has been some more differentiation between the Cephalochordata and the mammals, and some structures have become more dominant, but we can still find analogies between both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.220.26 (talk) 22:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Admittedly, we are in the realm of terminology here, as opposed to unassailable fact, but here are my 2 cents. Arthropods do have heads, and some sort of ganglia/brain structure at the anterior end of the spinal cord, within the head. It's clearly the anterior end of a central nervous system. There seem to be sources that treat insect "brains" as brains, and I don't think this page misleads anyone into thinking that those structures are the same as in vertebrates. So I think we have enough sourcing to treat the material the way that this page does. Should we add something to indicate the alternative point of view? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see a good recent source for that alternative point of view first. I could list boatloads of papers that refer to the "brain"s of insects, and in fact there is a pretty strong case that the brains of insects and vertebrates are homologous; see for example

PMID 15770230. Looie496 (talk

) 23:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

There needs to be a detailed section on how the brain evolved - from single-celled organisms with no brain, through primitive bilaterians with mere enlarged ganglions, to complex vertebrates with proper brains. Yes, there are scant explanations peppered throughout the article (e.g. in the "generic bilaterian nervous system" section, in the "vertebrates" section, etc), there is even a separate stub article on evolution of the brain... but, as with the article on eye, for example, we need a separate section on how the brain came to be, and, thereon in, on how it evolved. Please, someone with the knowledge on that, begin such a section. (same goes for liver - also needs an 'evolution' section) Thanks! BigSteve (talk) 12:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing attention to that! Your comment made me realize that, although we actually have a dedicated page on Evolution of the brain, that wasn't obvious at this page. Consequently, I added a hatnote link where I think it first comes up. Given the link, I think we can just rely on the existing WP:Summary style here, instead of spinning out a longer section. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice! I was actualy re-reading it and made a small but significant addition. This also allows for the Anatomy section to be expanded (maybe it can even be moved to the Physiology section, as it feels as if it belongs there better?) See what you think, revert it if you think I've gone too far. Thanks! BigSteve (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

All good. Even though "anatomy and physiology" often go well together as a combined subject, I decided to take a different approach, by keeping all those sub-sections where they have historically been, under the Anatomy header, but by having them grouped under Evolution, co-equally with the cellular material. In a sense, the material is written as the evolution of the anatomy, specifically. I also think that brain anatomy is, broadly speaking, a more important subject for this page than evolution is. But now, I think the arrangement is very logical, and it's easy to follow the link to the evolution of the brain page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Nifty! Looks good from where I'm standing, buddy :-) BigSteve (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I think it's a good evolution of the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you! Lova Falk talk 17:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The bilaterian tube-worm is an unwarranted abstraction. Lowest brained forms are pretty much just bilateralized cnidarians with the sense organs shifted to one side to form a head end, with no anus, and segmentation is minimal. Flatworms seem to have evolved from such intermediate forms. They are bilaterian, but not tube-like. So brains go back a bit further than the article claims. 69.121.117.192 (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The now created information on Brain evolution is great, but due to its size relative to the overall article, perhaps it should be

  "There needs to be a detailed section on how the brain evolved - from single-celled organisms with no brain, through primitive bilaterians with mere enlarged ganglions, to complex vertebrates with proper brains".

The problem with that is that there was no one evolutionary history of "the brain". There is the evolutionary history of, say, mammal brains, ant brains, etc. They are all going to be different. In particular, the last commpn ancestor of insects and mammals (jellyfish-like animals) would have had neurons, but no neuronal structures (ie, brains), therefore any resemblance between the brains of modern insects and modern mammals would have to be by convergent evolution. 80.6.141.160 (talk) 14:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience#Brain size and Human brain size. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

1. What part of the brain was the first to develop? 2. There should be a section added about the evolution of the brain from vertebrates to invertebrates. 3.Also there should be a more enhanced description of the parts of brain. For example like the medulla, pons and thalamus....etcBarrett.206 (talk) 00:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

A lot of that comes down to WP:Summary style. We have separate pages on Evolution of the brain, Medulla oblongata, Pons, and Thalamus. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

thank you yes, i see that but they lack info — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrett.206 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to Brain has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

103.4.100.165 (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC) In the first sentence of the third paragraph, I'm pretty sure the correct grammar is 'is yet to be solved', instead of 'has yet to be solved'.

 Done. Thanks for the suggestion. Deli nk (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Period referred to is not Cambrian but Ediacaran. Boundary is placed at 541mybp. Heavy reliance on one source which is currently (as of 2015) 12 years old and presents a single viewpoint in a rapidly advancing highly contentious field of study. Needs updating by an expert.68.178.50.46 (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed the date range; thanks. If you see any way to improve the article, please feel free to edit it. Experts on this topic are in short supply. Best regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Skimming this article it seems to me that all sections except for 'History' apply to brains generally, not the human brain specifically. The first paragraphs of the history section, however, seem to apply to humans.

The oldest brain... (really?)

the seat of the soul... (Did early philosophers recognize the soul in animals other than humans?)

The entire Hippocrates quote

Many experts have worked on the article. I'm no expert. Though tempted, I won't move any text to the other article. Suggesting that this matter be looked at, thanks. --Hordaland (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Most of the current material is my work. I'm open to having stuff moved, as long as it doesn't make the current article misleading to somebody who reads it without looking at the other article. Regarding the soul, the basic problem is that "soul" is an English language word, and there is no word in Latin or Greek that is exactly equivalent to it. For example the Greek word psyche and corresponding Latin word anima are usually translated as "soul", but more nearly mean "animating essence". Aristotle believed that anything that could move on its own initiative has a psyche. Looie496 (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Sounds like "animating essence" could almost be called "automobile", had that word not been taken.  ;-) --Hordaland (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Can we confirm the number of neurons on average in the human brain. This article specifies 15-33 billion. Numerous other articles (including research mentioned in The Guardian) specify 86 billion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.196.245 (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

- 'study of brain cells for different european ethnicities'. (large and inclusive samples).

conclusions to help us formulate an appropriate curriculum.

thanks.

ASG

223.180.133.54 (talk) 04:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I would like to remove the following sentence (under Functions): The function of the brain can be understood as information flow and implementation of algorithms. Although it is certainly true, I am convinced that for a reader who doesn't know this, it does not make it easier to understand what the brain does. (The following paragraphs do.) --Ettrig (talk) 12:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence is not helpful. Looie496 (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080807165804/http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/Aboitiz/Referees/ to http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/Aboitiz/Referees
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928024235/http://jerome.lettvin.info/lettvin/Jerome/WhatTheFrogsEyeTellsTheFrogsBrain.pdf to http://jerome.lettvin.info/lettvin/Jerome/WhatTheFrogsEyeTellsTheFrogsBrain.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://osiris.rutgers.edu/BuzsakiHP/Publications/PDFs/Buzsaki2004NatNeurosci.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Brain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714190157/http://www.columbia.edu/cu/biology/faculty/yuste/Publications/Yuste_Church_SciAm14.pdf to http://www.columbia.edu/cu/biology/faculty/yuste/Publications/Yuste_Church_SciAm14.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://flybrain.neurobio.arizona.edu/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081031120051/http://www.columbia.edu/cu/psychology/silver/publications2/149%20antle%20et%20al.pdf to http://www.columbia.edu/cu/psychology/silver/publications2/149%20antle%20et%20al.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050220094746/http://braininfo.rprc.washington.edu/ to http://braininfo.rprc.washington.edu/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

womens brain is in average 150 gramms lighter. isnt that worth to know in english wikipedia? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.99.117 (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

With this edit I contest the source to the statement on number of neurons in the lead section. Seems like the source has been added after the text, with no correction to the stated numbers.

But aren't there newer sources to access and use? For example, this one:

The search for true numbers of neurons and glial cells in the human brain: A review of 150 years of cell counting. (2016 Dec)

--Treetear (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

If you would like to change the figure to 10-20 billion neurons and use that article as source, I would have no problem at all with that. Looie496 (talk) 01:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and made this change to the text with the above mentioned source. I will likely reflect this in the article Neuron#Neurons in the brain eventually. --Treetear (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

вычислений, формул, схем, чертежей, ..

Бегать? Прыгать? Бить в барабан? Дудеть в трубу?

.. 176.59.213.148 (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

doljna bЫty razumnoj ..

P.S. Byla pesenka - " Обалдей! О Балда! ООО!!! ))) ..

M.P.S. .. грустно - кароче !

176.59.192.232 (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I have worked extensively on this article, fixing citations, reading the article to check issues with

As I understand billion has two meanings, thousand million (10**9) and million million (10**12). Which is used in these wikipedia articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.62.132 (talk) 04:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@88.114.62.132: Wikipedia almost always (from my knowledge) uses the short scale (billion = thousand million). Wretchskull (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

=

hi everybody I am a newbie so I am sorry for any mistakes alternative name for brain

the brain or encephalon the same for wikipedia.org/human_brain cite http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/encephalon http://education.yahoo.com/reference/gray/subjects/subject/186 and many other sourses thnaks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenhabit (talk • contribs) 22:02, April 3, 2013‎

The neural tube is the first step of brain development. Special stem cells, known as neural progenitor cells, are created within the neural tube. ... The back of the neural tube will create the neurons of the spinal cord, while the front part of the neural tube produces neurons that will eventually be part of the brain. Brain size increased rapidly during human evolution due to the expansion of many brain regions, resulting in human brains being exceptionally larger than those of our closest relatives. Humans have much larger brains than other primates, but it is not clear exactly when and how this difference emerged during evolution. The story of the brain begins in the ancient oceans, long before the first animals appeared. The single-celled organisms that swam or crawled in them may not have had brains, but they did have sophisticated ways of sensing and responding to their environment.2600:8800:320C:9800:9C01:768C:A54E:E3E7 (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

When you cant think it means you blocked out something. ( your teacher thinks you are stupid in class sometimes)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catdogpig2589 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

A. Brain in animal all life activities are under the control of brain tha structure of brain is suitabl 103.150.209.74 (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)