Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Where are you?

Expand Messages
  • Ian Pitchford
    Where are you? Mark Pilkington Thursday October 2, 2003 The Guardian There s a young student at this university, neurologist Professor John Lorber of
    Message 1 of 3 , Oct 4, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Where are you?

      Mark Pilkington
      Thursday October 2, 2003
      The Guardian

      "There's a young student at this university," neurologist Professor John Lorber
      of Sheffield University told Science magazine in December 1980, "who has
      an IQ of 126, has gained a first-class honours degree in mathematics, and is
      socially completely normal. And yet the boy has virtually no brain."
      A scan revealed that the student had only 1mm of brain tissue lining the inside
      of his skull - fluid filled the area where the rest of his brain should have
      been. His was an extreme case of hydrocephalus, or "water on the brain",
      whereby cerebrospinal fluid fills the brain instead of circulating around it.
      Most sufferers can lead normal lives if regularly treated.

      But if he had no brain, where was his mind?

      Similar questions are raised by cases of "transplant memories". In 1988, Claire
      Sylvia received a heart and double-lung transplant. After the operation, she
      underwent some apparent personality changes: she began to have unusual (for
      her) cravings for beer, green peppers and chicken nuggets; she dreamed about
      beautiful women and experienced homosexual urges. She also dreamed of meetings
      with a young man called Tim.

      Alarmed, Sylvia sought out her donor's family and discovered that her new
      organs had belonged to an 18-year-old boy, called Tim. Tim had a penchant for
      the same foods she was craving - he was eating chicken nuggets when he died -
      and Sylvia felt he was the boy in her dreams.

      In the 19th century, German anatomist Leopold Auerbach observed a complex
      network of nerve cells in the human digestive tract. This nerve bundle, a
      "second brain" containing more nerve cells than the spinal cord, was recently
      rediscovered by Michael Gershon at Columbia University. Professor Wolfgang
      Prinz in Munich has also studied this, and thinks it could govern some of our
      emotional and physical responses to thoughts and events - hence, perhaps, "gut
      feelings".

      Georgetown University's Dr Candace Pert has suggested that neuropeptides are
      linked to our sense of self. These chemicals, found in all our major organs and
      muscles, enable communication between the mind and body. Pert's theory is that
      they also carry our emotions and our memories. Is consciousness diffused
      throughout the body with them?

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/farout/story/0,13028,1053444,00.html
    • John McCrone
      Hi Karl - I wrote about the Lorber story in my column for the Lancet Neurology last year. Lorber was not entirely an innocent in this one it ... It is a fact
      Message 2 of 3 , Oct 5, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Karl - I wrote about the Lorber story in my column for the Lancet
        Neurology last year. Lorber was not entirely an innocent in this one it
        would seem. See below:

        ------------------

        It is a "fact" popular with creativity gurus, creationists and consciousness
        theorists that we use only the tiniest fraction of our brains. For
        creativity gurus, the implication is we need to start employing the other 90
        percent. For creationists and consciousness theorists, it means we can't
        even be so sure that the brain has much to do with the experience of being a
        mind.

        Of course, it is well known that this particular neurological myth arose
        with Karl Lashley's ablation experiments in the 1920s, where he chopped away
        at a rat's cortex to erase the ability to run mazes. Then Wilder Penfield
        and his probing electrode found large areas of "silent" cortex in epilepsy
        patients. Einstein even jokingly declared these untapped regions of the
        brain to be the secret of his success. But when anti-abortionists argue
        before Parliamentary committees about foetal sentience, or psychologists
        rail against research linking IQ to brain volume, it is the research of
        Sheffield University spina bifida specialist, John Lorber, that still really
        gets them going.

        In the 1970s, Lorber - part of a world-leading spinal surgery team at
        Sheffield Children's Hospital, which included Robert Zachary and John
        Sharrard - began CT scanning of patients referred with minor signs of
        hydrocephalus. Lorber was shocked at how many looked to have "wall to wall"
        ventricles, leaving barely any visible cortex.

        The most celebrated case was that of a 26-year-old student at the University
        with an IQ of 126, a first-class honours degree in mathematics, and
        "socially completely normal". This was despite a cortical mantle apparently
        squished to paper thinness, the usual four or five centimetres reduced to a
        bare millimetre or so. Lorber estimated that the man's whole brain weighed
        only about 100 grams. And hardly any of this was higher brain deemed so
        essential for proper intellectual functioning. Little wonder that Lorber was
        moved to ask "Is your brain really necessary?" when talking up his findings
        at medical conferences. Or that the august journal Science headlined with
        the very same question when it picked up on his claims and turned them into
        part of popular folklore (Science 1980; 210:1232-4).

        Just think about it. Lorber was saying he saw nothing but a skim of cortical
        tissue. So what is that great weight of white matter doing in normal brains?
        Is all the complex cortical structure we see somehow very misleading about
        how the brain operates?

        Well, after having had this particular factoid thrown at me in a number of
        debates about brain size and what it tells about human evolution, I thought
        it was about time to get to the bottom of it. Was there any truth to
        Lorber's claim?

        Lorber (who died in 1996) certainly stuck to his story, telling the Nursing
        Mirror in 1981 that in 500 CT scans he had found many hydrocephalics with
        "hardly any brain left above the level of the tentorium" and yet working as
        senior nurses, university graduates and members of executive councils. Nor
        did there seem to be loud public rebuttals from his colleagues, either at
        the time or subsequently with the advent of better neuroimaging technology.

        However talking to some of Lorber's contemporaries reveals that he probably
        was wildly exaggerating the extent of brain loss in his cases. "If the
        cortical mantle actually had been compressed to a couple of millimetres, it
        wouldn't even have shown up on his CT," scoffed one. Another agreed, saying
        modern scans show stretching, but not much real loss of brain weight with
        slow-onset hydrocephalus (where the brain has time to adjust): "The cortex
        and its connections are still there, even if grossly distorted."

        Colleagues further confide that Lorber was a known controversialist, already
        notorious for his attacks on surgeons whom he felt were too quick with the
        knife when treating severe cases of spina bifida. "You're torturing the
        children!", he would explode at meetings. So no one took his obviously
        extreme comments about healthy hydrocephalics with "virtually no brain" too
        seriously, even if they were being written up in Science.

        In hindsight, it would have been nice if someone had actually put paid to
        the myth by taking Lorber's famous maths student and doing a more definitive
        MRI scan. But even then, people would probably still believe what they want
        to believe about the relationship between mind and brain. Facts don't often
        get in the way of opinion in that particular arena of higher intellectual
        function.

        Cheers
        ------------------------------------------------------------
        from John McCrone

        check out my consciousness web site
        http://www.btinternet.com/~neuronaut/
        neuroscience, human evolution, Libet's half second, Vygotsky and more...
      • John van Wyhe
        Readers of the list may be interested to learn that the question of weather or not the mind is or is in the brain and the relevance of severe hydrocephalus was
        Message 3 of 3 , Oct 7, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Readers of the list may be interested to learn that the question of
          weather or not the mind is or is in the brain and the relevance of
          severe hydrocephalus was hotly debated in the controversies over
          phrenology in the early 19th century. Anti-phrenologists claimed that
          because there was no visible brain in the heads of dissected
          hydrocephali - and yet during life normal behaviour was observed- that
          the brain was irrelevant for the mind. The phrenologists, on the other
          hand, beginning with F.J. Gall maintained that the brain was NOT absent
          in these cases but that it was in fact the "fibres" of the brain had
          become separated and "unfolded" under the pressure of the trapped
          cerebro spinal fluid. Remember this was long before neurones were
          discovered!


          --
          Dr John van Wyhe

          Research Fellow, Open University

          Affiliate Researcher
          Dept. of History & Philosophy of Science, Cambridge University
          Free School Lane, Cambridge CB2 3RH, UK

          Editor,
          The writings of Charles Darwin on the web
          (http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/)
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.