November 12, 2019
Einstein's Brain
Timothy Birdnow
What makes a genius? That's what everyone wants to know.
The study of Einstein's brain has been ongoing and is still quite controversial.
From Discover Blog:
What was it that made Einstein different? While much is made of his "mathematical ability" the reality is Einstein was never that good at math, and in fact had to be tutored in the subject for his paper on General Relativity. (Contrary to popular belief Einstein did not fail math in school, he did well, but a change in the way students were graded gave the impression he was nearly failing.) Also, it has been suggested that Einstein's first paper on Special Relativity "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" was secretly co-authored by his wife Mileva Marić.
The reality is Einstein authored four papers that could have won him the Nobel Prize. He won it for his explanation of the photoelectric effect. (Einstein postulated photons, which helped unite the two theories of light - light is in fact a stream of discrete particles that move in a wave, so it is both wave and particle, solving the argument that had raged for decades and ending the feud between Newton and Huygens once and for all.) Einstein also explained Brownian motion, and used it as the first direct proof of the existence of atoms.
But he is most famous for his two theories of Relativity.
Einstein's work was rarely highly mathematical; he preferred to use simple analogies "thought experiments" to illustrate his point. In fact, Einstein's great talen was his imagination; he could visualize things in a way alien to everyone else. For example, he came up with Relativity by imagining what it would be like to ride on a beam of light.
Something was clearly different about his brain.
There is plenty of criticism of these studies of Einstein's brain. For instance, what came first, the chicken or the egg? Did Einstein's brain change over time to appear the way it did due to his work, or was it the way it was that made him so good at his work? Also, the extraction of the good doctor's brain was, um, less than careful and the brain is pretty carved up. As one scientist pointed out, EVERY brain is unique and if you poke around it you can justify any personality trait.
So in the end we don't know what made Einstein so amazing.
One of the great arguments of our day is the old fight between people who are convinced Man is just a hunk of meat and the brain is the essence of humanity and those who believe in a spirit independent of the body. The study of Einstein's brain is almost a microcosm of that; some insist his brain must show marked differences because it is the brain and the brain alone that is the essence of the mind. Others say, well, we are always finding thinking in different spots of the brain and there is a soul that simply uses the gray matter. This argument has intensified since the rise in neurobiology. The more we learn about the brain the less we know, it seems. In fact, Richard Feynman argued that the brain did not follow Classical or Quantum physical principles and required a whole new paradigm. (Feynman, the boy genius of the Manhattan Project, is himself a prime candidate for brain research. His I.Q. was only 127, but he was a superlative genius by any stretch; he just stunk at what he was bad at. Feynman transitioned from physics to neurobiology when physics began to peter out as a cutting edge discipline.)
At any rate, I urge readers to read the whole article; it's a fascinating look into the mind/brain debate.
What makes a genius? That's what everyone wants to know.
The study of Einstein's brain has been ongoing and is still quite controversial.
From Discover Blog:
In 1985, neuroscientist Marian Diamond of the University of California,
Berkeley, reported the Einstein brain had extra cells called glia.
These cells support the "thinking†neurons in the left parietal lobe,
an area above and behind the left ear involved in spatial relations and
mathematics. She speculated that this "might reflect the enhanced use
of this tissue in the expression of his unusual conceptual powers.â€
Seven years later, a researcher in Osaka, Japan, suggested a link
between that higher glia-to-neurons ratio and Einstein’s purported
dyslexia.
In
1999, neuroscientist Sandra Witelson reported an unusual configuration
in the folds and grooves of Einstein’s parietal lobes, suggesting they
may have developed earlier in life than usual. She wondered if that
configuration might have something to do with the physicist’s skills in
visual, spatial and mathematical thought. And Harvey himself
co-authored a 1996 paper that suggested the brain’s higher density of
neurons might make for faster communication between them.
In
a 2013 analysis of the photos before the last paragraph, anthropologist
Dean Falk counted four ridges (numbered 1-4) — one more than usual — in
the right frontal lobe, an area associated with abstract thought.
Researchers disagree about the significance of such anomalies.
Frederick E. Lepore
Most
recently, a 2013 Brain paper by Florida State University anthropologist
Dean Falk described the brain’s surface. In examining Harvey’s autopsy
photographs and comparing the brain’s appearance with 85 reference
brains, she noted a number of intriguing features. For example, it had
an omega sign, a knobby fold in the area of the brain that controls the
left hand. This variant can be prominent in musicians who play stringed
instruments. Einstein was an inveterate violinist.
From there it gets weirder. Part of the area controlling speech, called the Broca’s area, was unusually convoluted, and areas controlling the facial muscles around the mouth were enlarged (a finding reminiscent of the photo of Einstein sticking out his tongue). Falk noted extra convolutions in the frontal lobes, which are believed to be involved in thought experiments. The right superior parietal lobe, which receives visual and spatial information, was large, too. Co-author Frederick Lepore wonders if the parietal lobes were the locus of Einstein’s ability to envision space-time curvature.
The reality is Einstein authored four papers that could have won him the Nobel Prize. He won it for his explanation of the photoelectric effect. (Einstein postulated photons, which helped unite the two theories of light - light is in fact a stream of discrete particles that move in a wave, so it is both wave and particle, solving the argument that had raged for decades and ending the feud between Newton and Huygens once and for all.) Einstein also explained Brownian motion, and used it as the first direct proof of the existence of atoms.
But he is most famous for his two theories of Relativity.
Einstein's work was rarely highly mathematical; he preferred to use simple analogies "thought experiments" to illustrate his point. In fact, Einstein's great talen was his imagination; he could visualize things in a way alien to everyone else. For example, he came up with Relativity by imagining what it would be like to ride on a beam of light.
Something was clearly different about his brain.
There is plenty of criticism of these studies of Einstein's brain. For instance, what came first, the chicken or the egg? Did Einstein's brain change over time to appear the way it did due to his work, or was it the way it was that made him so good at his work? Also, the extraction of the good doctor's brain was, um, less than careful and the brain is pretty carved up. As one scientist pointed out, EVERY brain is unique and if you poke around it you can justify any personality trait.
So in the end we don't know what made Einstein so amazing.
One of the great arguments of our day is the old fight between people who are convinced Man is just a hunk of meat and the brain is the essence of humanity and those who believe in a spirit independent of the body. The study of Einstein's brain is almost a microcosm of that; some insist his brain must show marked differences because it is the brain and the brain alone that is the essence of the mind. Others say, well, we are always finding thinking in different spots of the brain and there is a soul that simply uses the gray matter. This argument has intensified since the rise in neurobiology. The more we learn about the brain the less we know, it seems. In fact, Richard Feynman argued that the brain did not follow Classical or Quantum physical principles and required a whole new paradigm. (Feynman, the boy genius of the Manhattan Project, is himself a prime candidate for brain research. His I.Q. was only 127, but he was a superlative genius by any stretch; he just stunk at what he was bad at. Feynman transitioned from physics to neurobiology when physics began to peter out as a cutting edge discipline.)
At any rate, I urge readers to read the whole article; it's a fascinating look into the mind/brain debate.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:17 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 993 words, total size 7 kb.
1
I think you could say that Einstein was one of the ultimate systems analysts. Perhaps an explanation is in order. I spent many years as a systems analyst/computer programmer, and most people (I think) tend to think of the two as inextricably joined at the hip. But a systems analyst really is just a person who, either by training or by instinct, analyzes how systems work, or can be made to work. Any kind of system. A system is "things working together." It could be a steam locomotive; a sewing machine; a mechanical clock or watch; a stealth bomber. Those are quite complex.
But a system can be quite simple, such as a crank on the end of an axle that is suspended from two fixed points and has a rope attached, with a bucket on the other end, for drawing water from a well. How many centuries before somebody figured that out?
At any rate, Einstein was thinking of systems that others just didn't see.
But a system can be quite simple, such as a crank on the end of an axle that is suspended from two fixed points and has a rope attached, with a bucket on the other end, for drawing water from a well. How many centuries before somebody figured that out?
At any rate, Einstein was thinking of systems that others just didn't see.
Posted by: Dana Mathewson at November 12, 2019 11:05 AM (SGWZs)
2
Hmm. I see your point, Dana. I think you are onto something here!
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at November 12, 2019 11:20 AM (cldiK)
29kb generated in CPU 0.1587, elapsed 0.4074 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.3916 seconds, 189 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
37 queries taking 0.3916 seconds, 189 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
