Brainless people: Do we really need brains?

Leviathan Press:

In November 2019, a paper titled "Life without a brain: Neuroradiological and behavioral evidence of neuroplasticity necessary to sustain brain function in the face of severe hydrocephalus" was published in Nature magazine. The paper pointed out that a mouse with severe hydrocephalus survived. Not only that, its spatial memory, sense of smell, hearing, touch, etc. were no different from those of ordinary mice, thus leading to a discussion on the "minimum" for survival. (www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53042-3) Scientists have long believed that consciousness is caused by the widespread coordinated activity between neurons in the brain. In other words, it is also a universal consensus that consciousness is born in the brain. However, how should the case of "brainless people" be explained? During one of my discussions, a very respectable person (I will not reveal who this person is) told me: "I think the self is in the heart! Not in the brain! Those scientific claims that consciousness is in the brain really make me laugh. I firmly believe that future scientists will also believe that the self is actually in the heart."

The man went on to say that we "think" with our hearts. Out of respect for him, I said nothing. But I kept thinking, "This is ridiculous!" I understand why this man is a believer in Eastern yogic practices, Islamic Sufism, and Buddhist thought, but at the same time (as a person who believes in science), I reject all of this. Although I have great respect for those sects (such as Buddhism), I still question them when they contradict empirical evidence.

This person then claimed that he had evidence to back up his claims. He mentioned some stories where doctors scanned normal people's brains and found that there was no brain in their skulls, only water. At this point, I thought again that this was ridiculous. This might just be some anecdotes that were exaggerated and gradually became distorted in word of mouth.

So when I discovered these stories were real, I was shocked and ashamed.

In December 1980, Roger Lewin published an article in the journal Science titled “Do We Really Need Brains?”

(pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7434023/)

The article is based on case studies of patients with cerebral edema by British neurologist John Lorber (1915-1996), and explores one case in detail: a college student had an IQ of 126, a first-class honors degree in mathematics, and completely normal social behavior, but in a brain scan they found that he actually had no brain.

The thickness of the cerebral cortex of a normal person is generally 4.5 mm, but his is only 1 mm thin, and the rest is filled with watery cerebrospinal fluid. This phenomenon may be because the cerebrospinal fluid continues to accumulate, resulting in increased intracranial pressure and reduced intracranial space, so the cerebral cortex fills outward (that is, toward the skull) slowly. This means that the deeper the sulci of the cerebral cortex, the less suppressed it is during development, and the more complete the brain structure is relatively (although the cerebral cortex will still shrink under pressure and may not reach a normal state).

The case was well documented and hotly debated, and the article received much attention. The leading explanation seems to be neural adaptive function (also known as prevarication). However, these phenomena remain difficult to explain to this day. As Professor Emeritus William Reville said:

"I certainly can't explain Lorber's findings, but I would like to point out that in some cases the brain shows extraordinary resilience, and despite being severely squeezed and deformed in capacity and structure, it can still function in a way that approximates what we know as 'normal.'"

Lober found other fascinating cases that proved anencephaly was not unique. In fact, half of the people in his study had more than 95 percent of their brains filled with cerebrospinal fluid but still had IQs over 100.

John Lorber's scans of a patient with cerebral edema. © CRÓNICA

I still don't understand why this hasn't rocked the neuroscience world. I think it's absolutely earth-shattering.

Perhaps the neuroadaptive theory can explain the transfer of some functions, but it is certain that a brain weighing only 50-150 grams (and with a cerebral cortex only 1 mm thick) must have huge cognitive defects compared to a normal brain weighing 1.5 kg. Our neurological theory often associates the cerebral cortex with brain areas with information processing functions, such as the sensory cortex, motor cortex, auditory and visual cortex, etc. There are also some other functions related to it, such as abstract ability, calculation, logical thinking and memory.

It is clear that all these brain regions seem to be squeezed onto the 1 mm thick cortex and still function normally. Although the morphological changes were not mentioned in this article, more recent studies have shown that patients with brain edema have great damage to the axons, cytoskeleton and synapses of neurons; the number of neuronal deaths is relatively small, but there are also secondary changes.

(onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ddrr.94/abstract)

(www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16848091)

(www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S030645220100166X)

In 2007, a case published in the British medical authority "The Lancet" shocked the world. The French man was 44 years old and a government official. At that time, he went to see a doctor because of some problems with his left leg. After the doctor performed a CT and MRI scan of his brain, he was surprised to find that his ventricles were full of cerebrospinal fluid. Those brain tissues that should have been normal were squeezed by the cerebrospinal fluid and were as thin as a piece of paper. The brain test showed that his IQ was 75, which was slightly lower than the average person, but it was far from being classified as intellectually disabled. And he lived a happy life, almost unaffected. In fact, he had been married and had two children, and was also a government official.

(www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)61127-1/fulltext)

This has a significant impact on communication function, but many patients' intelligence and cognitive levels are still within normal range. Shouldn't we reflect on our current cognition or research direction? Currently, most of our theories about communication and signal transmission are still based on the brain.

As the cortex becomes flatter and smaller, it also weakens the ability of neurons to make new connections, which are fundamental to our understanding of brain activity and explain how learning and memory work.

For example, experiments have shown that grid cells exist in the entorhinal cortex, and together with place cells (the discoverers of place cells won the 2014 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine), they form the navigation system of animals and humans. The mechanism of grid cells is very complex, but a major core lies in "modular organization". This is evidence that neurons have a "spatial" integration function. Now I am very curious, when these are also squeezed and deformed, can the brain still operate the navigation system normally?

(www.nature.com/articles/nature03721) (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4042558/)

A 2016 Lancet paper shows a scan of a 62-year-old woman with hydrocephalus. The patient (who had a history of hypertension and type 2 diabetes) had been in good mental health before being admitted to hospital. © The Lancet

If we believe that cognitive, conscious, and subconscious processes can still function normally above the thin 1mm cerebral cortex, then we also have to admit that all these processes (including consciousness) are relatively simple and easier to explain. In this sense, the brain should not be infinitely complex. This view also supports the view (which is also my personal intuition) that consciousness is more related to the specific structure of the brain developed, rather than depending on a certain location and/or the complexity of a specific brain area.

Overall, the article made my views more malleable. It also showed that, especially in the social sciences, we sometimes draw conclusions based on populations or totals. We find the best fit or inductive conclusion from a collection of individual data, but ignore the importance of the individual data themselves.

Does this mean that we are thinking with our hearts?

This also sounds ridiculous, because we know that most of the heart is made up of myocardial tissue.

I no longer hold to my previous views, but I am still trying to fish in this sea of ​​chaos, and I have indeed found some interesting things.

A 2003 article in The Guardian, based on anecdotes, coined the term "transplant memory." Apparently, this happens to some people who have received a heart transplant, who develop new hobbies or personality changes that were inherited from the heart donor.

(www.theguardian.com/education/2003/oct/02/research.highereducation1)

The article also mentions other interesting concepts. First, the "myenteric plexus" is a second brain in the gut that may be responsible for emotional responses or "gut feelings." Second, neuropeptides throughout the body can provide a sense of "self" and carry emotions and memories.

Overall, I find this unlikely, at least not to the extent that it explains the full picture we see. However, the people who are proposing or working on these ideas seem to be scientists, not Eastern mystics.

I also found a good article in the journal Namah (but I'm not sure of the journal's credentials) that provides details for the above and many other ideas, with references at the end to support those hypotheses.

(www.namahjournal.com/doc/Actual/Memory-transference-in-organ-transplant-recipients-vol-19-iss-1.html)

All that said, I personally don’t know whether to accept these alternative explanations, or whether neuroplasticity itself makes sense. Regardless, it certainly undercuts my preconceived ideas, and I’m humbled by that.

What do you think?

By Fizan

Translated by Yord

Proofreading/Rachel

Original article/metascientist.com/do-we-even-need-our-brains/

This article is based on the Creative Commons Agreement (BY-NC) and is published by Yord on Leviathan

The article only reflects the author's views and does not necessarily represent the position of Leviathan