Biology of the Brain

S.A.M.

uniquely dreadful
Valued Senior Member
Biology of the Brain


The brain is probably the most complex structure in the known universe; complex enough to coordinate the fingers of a concert pianist or to create a three-dimensional landscape from light that falls on a two-dimensional retina. While it is the product of many millions of years of evolution, some of the structures unique to the human species have only appeared relatively recently.

Almost all the tasks that seem hard or difficult for human beings but that the present generation of computers can easily perform are associated with processing in parts of the relatively new cortex. Conversely, tasks that humans normally find easy but that are difficult for computers typically have a much longer evolutionary history.

In evolutionary terms, all brains are extensions of the spinal cord. The distant ancestor of the human brain originated in the primordial seas some 500,000,000 years ago. Life and survival in those seas was relatively simple and in consequence these early brains consisted of just a few hundred nerve cells.

A major change occurred when these early fish crawled out of the seas and onto the land. The enhanced difficulties of survival on land led to the creation of the "reptilian brain".

The next major addition occurred with the mammalian brain in which a new structure emerged - the cerebrum or forebrain along with its covering, the cortex. By now, the brain consisted of literally hundreds of millions of nerve cells organized into separate regions of the brain and associated with different tasks.

About 5,000,000 years ago, another type of cortex appeared in a new species - early man. In this brain, the surface of the cortex was organized into separate columnar regions less than one millimeter wide but each containing many millions of nerve cells or neurons. This new structure allowed much more complex processing to take place.

Finally, about 100,000 years ago, this new cortex underwent rapid expansion with the advent of modern man. The present day cortex contains something like two-thirds of all neurons and weighs about three pounds - almost triple its weight only one hundred thousand years ago!

Check out this gorgeous site!
http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/MM/brain/large/large.html
 
500,000,000 years ago? And then? Eukaryotes evolved over 2 billion years ago. I'll wait to see what others post before I reply.
 
to create a three-dimensional landscape from light that falls on a two-dimensional retina.

Wonder what that is supposed to mean? shade, shadow's, depth or x,y,z :p.

Is the retina 2 dimensional?

I'll wait to see what others post before I reply

ok, me too. with 9 member and 459 guests it might be awhile.
 
valich said:
500,000,000 years ago? And then? Eukaryotes evolved over 2 billion years ago. I'll wait to see what others post before I reply.
I fail to see what you're getting at. What does the early evolution have to do with the first semblance of a brain structure? What does the early evolution of eukaryotic cells have to do with the context of the discussion sam was trying to create?
 
I have several times posted my theory of perception. The accepted view of perception is that it is the "emergent" end results of neural processing of data collected by the senses. I state it is instead a nearly accurate (illusions do occur) real time simulation of the world taking place in parietal cortex.

The standard view is obviously wrong, for many reasons I discuss in the post, but one (simply stated) is that neural synaptic delays would make it impossible to play a fast game of ping-pong. etc. (My “real time simulation” slightly projects ahead the sensory data to compensate for these synaptic delays.)

The standard "emergent view" also is at a total loss to explain the fact that object seen are first dissected into "characteristics” or “features" which are further processed in entirely separate areas of the brain. For example, a tennis ball has its color, shape, speed, and location (and about a dozen other characteristics, fuzzy surface, etc.) all processed in physically separate parts of the brain. The results of this processing are never reassembled anywhere in the brain to yield the UNIFIED perception of a yellow, sphere, slowing rolling down the tennis net and just striking the court "now" etc. which we perceive!

What now follows is a small part of the prior post (If anyone wishes I will dig up the reference or post again if asked to.)


The physically sensed world is dissected into “features” for the same reason that a pilot uses a checklist before takeoff. Dividing a complex task into its component details and separately checking each, item by item, feature by feature, improves task performance accuracy. Thus, both the real-time simulation and the dissection of the visual field into features have significant survival value and consequently are probable natural developments in the evolution of creatures as complex as man.

In order to compare the features derived from retinal data with those derived from the simulation, they must be brought to the same neural tissue. Clearly it would be advantages to make this comparison as early as possible in the sequential stages of “computational transforms” of the retinal information. If the simulation is constructed in the parietal region of the brain, then one would expect that the number of neural fiber leaving the parietal cortex and returning to the visual cortex would at least equal those coming there, via the LGN, from the eyes. In fact they are somewhat more numerous. They are called “retrograde fibers” and no plausible reason for their existence has been suggested. Some of the comparison may be made even earlier in the LGN, which is usually considered to be mainly a “relay station” between the eyes and visual cortex. (Both areas have large projections into the parietal cortex, so it can easily “know” when, where and what difference has been detected.) The quantity of retrograde fibers from the visual striate cortex to the LGN slightly outnumbers the number of fibers coming there from the eyes. About this second set of retrograde fibers, DeValois(4) states: “It is by no means obvious what function is sub served by this feedback.” (From V1 to LGN) About the retrograde set from the parietal to V1, they state: “Even less is understood (if that is possible) about these feedback connections...” They also note that both sets are “strictly retinotopic,” which is the neuro-physiologist’s way to compactly state that each small part of the visual field is mapped in one-to-one correspondence with neural tissue. That is, the retrograde fibers return to the same small area of processing cells that the prograde fibers enter and these cells are concerned with only a small part of the image on the retina. This approximately equal number of retinotopic retrograde fibers entering the visual cortex, is not only explained by the theory I am suggesting; they are required for the simulation to rapidly correct for unpredictable external events!
------------------------------------------
4) Page 101 of Spatial Vision, first edition, Oxford Psychology Series No. 14, by R.L. & K.K. DeValois Oxford University Press (ISBN 0-19-505019-3)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fascinting post Billy T

Anybody know why some people think in pictures and others in words?

How is it different spatially?
 
It could be taught, or it could be that some part of the brain is less developed in verbal areas, and more developed in areas devoted to spatial tasks.
 
spidergoat said:
It could be taught, or it could be that some part of the brain is less developed in verbal areas, and more developed in areas devoted to spatial tasks.

I was wondering if the differences were biological in nature; aren't people one or the other?

Or are there people who can do both?
 
samcdkey said:
Fascinting post Billy T

Anybody know why some people think in pictures and others in words?

How is it different spatially?


Probably just variability on whatever part of our chromosomes that controls such things. I imagine they'd be codominant traits, so you could inherit different levels of how visual, verbal, etc. you are.

It probably also has to do with how you are raised, as the brain is quite plastic and adapts to different circumstances.
 
Roman said:
Probably just variability on whatever part of our chromosomes that controls such things. I imagine they'd be codominant traits, so you could inherit different levels of how visual, verbal, etc. you are.

It probably also has to do with how you are raised, as the brain is quite plastic and adapts to different circumstances.
Yes. I think its both things. I read a thing about this somewhere. I forget.
 
I have been avoiding comment on the picures vs words, but will now. People will report that they do one or the other or both, but how they actually are thinking probably is entirely different.*

There was about 15 or 20 years ago a strong discusion in the cognitive scisnce literature, and several books published devoted to only the question "Do 'mental pictures' exist?" As far as I know and can recall, neither side of this multi-year battle "won." - They just got tired of fighting. I own one of the books, but like most of my books, it is backed away. I think it is called "mental images." - google search "mental images" and you should be able to turn up some more on this.
---------------------------------------
*the congentially deaf-blind can certainly think, but in most cases they have little to think about that can be put into words or pictures. Helen Keller was not deaf-blind at birth, but certainly could think before Ann Sulivan came on the scene.
 
samcdkey said:
Anybody know why some people think in pictures and others in words? How is it different spatially?
I wonder if it's such a clear cut difference.

I'm a musician, I can think in music. It's sound but not verbal. Most people can do that to be sure but perhaps we musicians can think more creatively rather than playing back what we've heard, making it more similar to verbal thinking. Mathematicians think in math. Sure, they've probably got a really low-bandwidth verbal component to it as they recite the symbols silently, but it's hardly "words" the way we mean it. Yet musicians and mathematicians also think in words. It would probably be more precise to say that we think in words and also in music or math.

Painters and sculptors are at the other extreme and probably could be said to think in pictures but also in words.

I've done enough street racing to strongly suspect that professional race car drivers and surely all athletes are thinking in a combination of kinesthetics and visual stimuli when they're working, rather than words.

It seems to me that the picture/word thing is a continuum, not either/or. Not to mention the picture/math/music/kinesthetic/word thing.

They say that music, math, and art all show up in the right brain, whereas conventional reasoning is more left-brained. Maybe the difference you're looking for is as simple as the hemisphere.
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
I wonder if it's such a clear cut difference.

I'm a musician, I can think in music. It's sound but not verbal. Most people can do that to be sure but perhaps we musicians can think more creatively rather than playing back what we've heard, making it more similar to verbal thinking. Mathematicians think in math. Sure, they've probably got a really low-bandwidth verbal component to it as they recite the symbols silently, but it's hardly "words" the way we mean it. Yet musicians and mathematicians also think in words. It would probably be more precise to say that we think in words and also in music or math.

Painters and sculptors are at the other extreme and probably could be said to think in pictures but also in words.

I've done enough street racing to strongly suspect that professional race car drivers and surely all athletes are thinking in a combination of kinesthetics and visual stimuli when they're working, rather than words.

It seems to me that the picture/word thing is a continuum, not either/or. Not to mention the picture/math/music/kinesthetic/word thing.

They say that music, math, and art all show up in the right brain, whereas conventional reasoning is more left-brained. Maybe the difference you're looking for is as simple as the hemisphere.

And climbers think in terms of holds and how to curve their body to the wall, and boaters think in terms of hydraulics and how to brace against rapids.

Then they invent lingo to verbally convey what they feel, but in no way do the words mean anything until you've experienced what it's like to climb or to boat.

I wonder if verbal thinking is saved for stuff that has to do with other people.
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
I wonder if it's such a clear cut difference.

I'm a musician, I can think in music. It's sound but not verbal. Most people can do that to be sure but perhaps we musicians can think more creatively rather than playing back what we've heard, making it more similar to verbal thinking. Mathematicians think in math. Sure, they've probably got a really low-bandwidth verbal component to it as they recite the symbols silently, but it's hardly "words" the way we mean it. Yet musicians and mathematicians also think in words. It would probably be more precise to say that we think in words and also in music or math.

Painters and sculptors are at the other extreme and probably could be said to think in pictures but also in words.

I've done enough street racing to strongly suspect that professional race car drivers and surely all athletes are thinking in a combination of kinesthetics and visual stimuli when they're working, rather than words.

It seems to me that the picture/word thing is a continuum, not either/or. Not to mention the picture/math/music/kinesthetic/word thing.

They say that music, math, and art all show up in the right brain, whereas conventional reasoning is more left-brained. Maybe the difference you're looking for is as simple as the hemisphere.


Thats really interesting, I had no idea there were so many possiblities.

I met a graduate student the other day, she works with language disabilities in children and is working with concept formation and how inability to cognitively recognise patterns in language could be corrected by training.

That and Billy T's post got me thinking on this.

Do you know anything more about the picture/math/music/kinesthetic/word thing? :)
 
Roman said:
...I wonder if verbal thinking is saved for stuff that has to do with other people.
Could be, but probably more so for stuff that is "you," at least that is Dan Dennit's view in his book Consciousness Explained which I think is both wrong and overly grandiose in its title, but certainly we do constantly tell ourselves stories as he contends as a large part of consciousness. I.e. we hear our selfs silently as we think, if we have a language, but as Chompski et al. have shown the surface language (English, Hindi, etc.) is only a mirror of a deeper one, with some universal rules, which we can not be conscious of.
 
Back
Top