* Different brain regions have different functions: ancient knowledge.
* Different regions contain distinct cell types and molecular programs: also well established.
* Anterior and posterior brain structures may trace back to fundamentally separate progenitor lineages that were independently specified very early in evolution and development: that's the interesting new result.
The headline should have been: "Human forebrain and hindbrain arise from distinct embryonic progenitor lineages" - not that we have "two organs" in the brain.
When I studied neuroanatomy in the earl 2000s it was already taught that the evolutionary history of the forebrain (from comparative anatomy) seems to have invaded the hindbrain and seems to control it like a puppet.
> "Human forebrain and hindbrain arise from distinct embryonic progenitor lineages"
I'd have never clicked that headline nor understood why this finding is important.
If you think the original headline is not "truthful" enough, at least do something like "Researchers found the reason why hindbrain cells cannot be grown in a lab and found a way to overcome it"
> not that we have "two organs" in the brain.
Depends what the definition of "organ" actually is. What speaks for different organs here is that the cells both have a different pathway from stem cells and have different evolutionary histories. That is different from other brain regions that may have separate functions but still evolved together.
We should not be wary of loud truths either. Unless we push the envelope we cannot trace back to the essence. Like, as an outsider in this discussion, I am now inclined not only to assess the finding, but also the definition of an organ. The title did good work. Its refutation too. Fencing every statement in unquestionable truth does not make the pursuit of truth stronger.
But there’s rarely one correct answer. Conveying the same approximate message to multiple types of readers is extremely difficult in a handful of words. People with subject matter knowledge are annoyed by headlines written for laypeople that don’t know the jargon or have a mental model of the important concepts that jargon represents. They always seem to miss important distinctions, make poor analogies, or the like. Headline-length blurbs that successfully convey those things to the knowledgeable are often utterly opaque to laypeople causing them to ignore articles about topics they’d find interesting. The only option is trying to estimate the subject matter expertise of the audience, and despite many people in the tech world assuming their software knowledge gives them technical expertise in many non-software fields, the layperson headline is absolutely the best approach here.
This is not true. There is a complex relationship between truth and good communication. The relationship is non linear and convoluted and it depends often on the subject of what is being communicated.
There are many many cases where lies are easier to communicate than the truth.
Take tobacco for instance. For the longest time we did not know it was bad for you. It took decades of epidemiological research and statistical techniques to ascertain that it was bad.
The truth was buried in numbers and human knowledge about applied mathematics and statistics. Without centuries of human endeavor to create the concept of science unionized with the rigor of statistics the truth would have remained forever invisible.
The sheer complexity of the truth in this case makes is extremely hard to communicate. We mostly trust that smoking is bad based off of the reputation of the researchers who established that fact. But the truth was never really directly communicated to most of us as it involves diving deep into the data.
> There is a complex relationship between truth and *good* communication. [...] There are many many cases where lies are *easier to communicate* than the truth.
You're literally conflating good communication with easy communication.
The truth about tobacco was known for years but ignored because 1) industry lobbying and 2) the Nazis were the ones who figured it out, and pushed anti-smoking hard, so smoking became something "our side" did, 3) tobacco was still a huge US export.
It was easy to communicate, but we were motivated to not listen.
No the deaths were buried deep in the statistical data. It’s not apparent and we did not know either way.
Yes there were people who said it’s bad but their word was as good as bullshit because until we had the statistics there is literally no way to truly know.
I think it's less about what was said (it is truthful) and more what isn't mentioned in the title which leaves ambiguity.
I don't necessarily think it's intentional. For those with knowledge in the field I suspect it resonates the appropriate reaction.
For those outside of the field, I think the perception of what being 2 organs means does a lot of leg work in invoking a response which seems exaggerated, but is probably caused by incorrect assumptions of what the title is trying to convey.
I hope that makes some sense, I feel that was a lot of word vomit but I'm struggling to find the right words, it's somewhat meta
You stated that the current headline informs you why the result is important. Why is that? Surely, given that the information was communicated to you, you can share it with me?
Yeah, this is a frequent failure of science communication. Misleading clickbait overselling a paper that made real progress in some capacity. I'd be more interested in hearing the truth of the matter and about the researchers passion for their study area. Spinning everything into some high stakes breakthrough that fundamentally changes our understanding of the world just makes me feel like my time was maliciously wasted and that I shouldn't click on news about science.
When an organ is known to be generated from 2 distinct embryonic preforms, which become merged and integrated at a later stage of development, there is a likelihood that in some distant ancestor the integration into a single organ was much less advanced than now and possibly the two parts remained as relatively separated organs even during adulthood.
There are many groups of animals that include both some species that have retained a more primitive condition, where some nervous ganglia have remained separated, while other species have a derived condition, where those nervous ganglia have fused into a single ganglion.
In this case it is not known for sure what happened, because the early evolution of the nervous system, from a sensory structure embedded in the skin to a complex internal system that mediates the communication between sensors and motor or secretory organs, is still poorly understood.
In any case, this research confirms that the differences between forebrain+midbrain (which includes the cerebrum) and hindbrain (which includes the cerebellum) are very important, because they become established very early during the development of the embryo, at a time when the progenitors of many organs are still interchangeable.
Given the parallel example cited in the article of jellyfish having two spatially separate organs, & the subsequent speculation that our own ancestors could also have had spacially separate anterior & posterior masses, the title doesn't really seem unreasonable in its hyperbole.
While it might not be perfectly accurate it's hardly misleading.
I found the title confusing, at the very least because it can be argued that the two brain hemispheres are two organs already, as they operate independently when severed from each other.
This is not a good analogy, because both kidneys do the same thing and we don't need both of them to live.
Whereas the left and right brain hemispheres do different things that enable our species to be what it now is; which is more similar to what the article calls hind and fore/front brains, which again do different things that we wouldn't be us without. We would still be human if we had only one kidney the way we have only one bladder or one pancreas.
Kidneys are more like say lungs, gonads, breasts, or nostrils in that we have +1 extra; but the benefit created by multiplicity is ~doubling or capacity and resilience to local disease and random injury-- not a profound functionality. (Like is created by the second eye or second leg.) Of these, the second breast is radically more useful than the second kidney, and is probably a special case as it changes how we live so evolved.
The right and left hemispheres do different things… unless you had a hemispherectomy as an infant and then one half is able to mostly perform the duties of both.
I think "Human brain evolved from two separate organs" would've been more accurate and sufficiently simple/short for a headline, but I guess it won't fly either due to political reasons.
> I think "Human brain evolved from two separate organs" would've been more accurate and sufficiently simple/short for a headline, but I guess it won't fly either due to political reasons.
I don't agree. For that you need to distort the definition of what an organ is to comply the requirement for two separate organs with distinct origin, genetic, and biochemical traits, and different function and responsibilities to somehow remain classified as the same organ.
Lying is always a bad choice. The paper in Nature says
"Hence, we postulate the brain is a composite organ emanating from two lineage-restricted progenitors; these dual progenitors may be evolutionarily conserved across 550 million years from hemichordates to mammals."
I don't have a problem with the 'two organs making one' framing. The fact that they are 'symbiotic' now doesn't change that. In fact it helps me understand two key facts. One can't grow out of the other, and they work differently. Great
The Portuguese Man o’ War[0] is a symbiotic organism. If you want to get technical, I guess we are, as well. We’re really kind of fascinating meatbags.
We are absolutely symbiotic from our cells upward. A large percentage of your body mass is bacteria, including the symbiotic bacteria you feed in your gut with the food you think you’re eating only for yourself.
They also use this result to great hindbrain neurons in the lab for the first time, so it's a strikingly useful discovery.
I think it's also fair to say they are different organs based on the developmental physiology. Many other organs come from distinct embryonic cell lines.
I'm sorry, it just sounds like you're mad at medical researcher for trying to make their research more accessible?
What do you mean by oversell? And why do you think the general public would be more apt to understand "distinct embryonic progenitor lineages" than "two organs"?
What exactly is the problem here? You think medical researcher are using medial nomenclature wrong?
Main issue I have with the title is it immediately reminded me about McGilchrist's "The Divided Brain" and I thought they meant the two halves - but that is not the case.
This is meaningless semantic drama over a meaningful discovery. From a biological and medical perspective, the collective term "organ" is pretty useless, if there is a distinct progenitor lineage. For the sake of a simplified explanation for the public, describing this discovery as finding "two organs" is absolutely fair.
A similar example: The melanocytes in the skin originate from the neural crest, not the epidermis. As a significant consequence, melanocytes share cell attributes with neurons. One of these attributes is the ability to infiltrate other tissues. Because of that, malignant transformation of melanocytes has vastly different consequences, compared to epithelial cells. If you asked your doctor why squamous cell cancer and melanoma have such different prognoses, describing your skin as effectively "two organs" would be illustrative and easy to understand, without getting into developmental biology.
I've found it useful to think in terms of how such structures might have evolved. The beginning state is always something very simple: the first nerve. It must go from A to B. Perhaps from a food sensing area to a muscle. Sense food, stop moving, something like that. Organisms could evolve multiple copies of that structure: N nerves going from A(n) to B(n). At some point the next invention arises: some logic gate type thing that branches and/or combines nerves. So now sensing food can make movement stop and also digestion begin. Or food response can be attenuated during the day time. And so on. There's no reason why you'd have exactly one of these "nerve processor" nodes. There's also no reason why several different kinds of them and different instances might evolve. They're useful. Then at some point the next discovery is made: by combining several nerve processor nodes in close proximity, with their own inter-node connections, you can perform more complex processing. You've now got a proto-brain. But again there's nothing to say you have exactly one of these things, or that they're exact replicas of each other.
Possibly, but I wouldn't assume any connection. In sociological terms, modern universities are mid-last-millennium noble houses*, locked in an endless competition for power, wealth, prestige, and influence. Adding a few stanzas of hyperbole when bragging about one of their knights vanquishing some infidel of ignorance? That's simply how things are done.
*Yes, there's never really a king or duke or whatever. But consider the history of the word regent.
I think you're right. And I would even assume that, should the article be from Fox News (just an example), every other commenter that excuses the title would have yelled at journalism slop, clickbait and whatnot.
But that's stanford.edu, so we must tread lightly.
Agreed. Anybody who looks at a picture of the brain can see the cerebellum (part of the hindbrain) is obviously a different organ. I only clicked the link to find out if there was any new science buried under the hype of the title.
> They identified two different brain progenitor cells. One, which expresses a gene called Otx2, is destined to become the forebrain and midbrain. The other, which expresses a gene called Gbx2, is committed to forming the hindbrain. They showed that these two cell populations never overlap; they are mutually exclusive from the earliest stages of development.
Very cool. Never thought the brain could have two completely different ancestors
"Nervous systems are typically defined as networks of neurons that communicate across synapses. But Burkhardt’s lab found something unique in ctenophores: Beneath the animal’s outer surface is a nerve net (pink mesh in this 3D reconstruction) whose neurons are connected by continuous cytoplasm — but with no synapses between them. “I don’t think any other animal has a nervous system like that,” Burkhardt said. Because ctenophores are one of the earliest branches of the animal family tree, the finding indicates that evolution may have crafted nervous systems twice: in ctenophores, and separately in jellyfish and all other animals."
The really exciting thing in this article is that this research led them to a new technique for growing brain stem cells in vitro, which has been very difficult until now. If that isn't being oversold, it's big news. That's going to make future research into diseases like ALS a lot easier.
It really fascinates me how dumb HN community is considering they know nothing about brain on the level of actual experts yet readily comment it as “non important” based on vibes.
If this is not your area of expertise why comment with stunning confidence on something you have no idea about?
The actual research says something far less clickworthy. Are Stanford's PR dribbles now created by LLMs ?
"Two parallel neural ectoderm progenitors contribute to the developing brain
Abstract
When and how different brain regions diversify from one another remains unresolved.
Does a common neural ectoderm progenitor generate the entire brain? Or do multiple neural ectoderm progenitors exist, each restricted to form specific brain regions?
Here our lineage tracing studies of mouse embryos support the latter model. Two parallel brain progenitors emerge simultaneously during gastrulation: anterior neural ectoderm (forebrain/midbrain progenitor) and posterior neural ectoderm (hindbrain progenitor). Differentiation of human pluripotent stem cells into anterior or posterior neural ectoderm-like cells revealed these were lineage committed to forebrain/midbrain versus hindbrain fates, respectively. They harbored diverging chromatin landscapes foreshadowing future forebrain/midbrain versus hindbrain identities. We further differentiated human pluripotent stem cells into hindbrain rhombomere 5/6-specific motor neurons, which were hitherto difficult to generate in vitro.
Hence, we postulate the brain is a composite organ emanating from two lineage-restricted progenitors; these dual progenitors may be evolutionarily conserved across 550 million years from hemichordates to mammals."
I think it's very interesting news. We've known about the brain's separate parts, and separate functions for a while. It was always assumed our evolution of the brain was neatly, and tidily tucked away as somethat that branches off a singular thing. A single step from the pluripotent, 'infinitely renewable' stem cell into another single progenitor.
This suggested a sequence of events, causes and effects, that somehow our minds today can be evolved from a singular 'step' within growth. Only our brains seems have this requirement.
So this requirement, in and of itself, is interesting and newsworthy. For whatever purposes, it's 2 separate systems that many living organisms evolve in the same way. It's 2 steps, for some physical reason.
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY 4.0 International license.
All the comments I see are about is it two organs, or a composite organ.
Surely the interesting thing is the ability to grow hindbrain cells in vitreo. That's what's potentially going to lead to the cure of lots of things, not whether 1=2.
The cerebellum isn't just for motor skills. It's more of a place where very commonly used patterns get a bunch of dedicated wetware so the computation is superfast and precise. In an (undoubtedly very limited) analogy a bunch of FPGAs to complement the general processing. It does make a lot of sense to use this functionality for motor skills, though.
It's spent on 'fast, effortless' recall. Maybe, long-term memory, or memories associated with activities like balance, singing, and anything that requires precise steady control.
A keeper of balance and rhythm, if you want to think of it that way, and anything that is too much of a burden to creativity: a mind is a bunch of ideas (thoughts) collected into a moment in the mind, all the ones needed for controlling things like balance and rhythm are best handled in an autonomously looped fashion (think Cybernetics: control loops that guide an agent).
The article mentions the forebrain controls creativity, reasoning, higher-level thinking. And the hindbrain controls muscles of the throat, tongue, etc: so speech, singing. We all reach for some 'flow' state: perhaps it's this state where the 80% and 20% are more in harmony within the mind. Where what we create with our minds is appreciated, and the outer loop that critiques ourselves lays quiet. 'Flow' is achieved.
Everything becomes an autonomous loop: which is the study of Cybernetics, and (coincidentally?) the birthplace of AI.
If we follow the pattern of simulating biology, I would expect some ratio of compute could be determined 'optimal' for the new Dream-RSI technique recently: https://www.dream-rsi.com/ to eventually move towards '80%' of compute for autonomously controlled systems, and 20% towards 'something else'. The ratio won't be there in the beginning because an AI system has different autonomous needs.
Through testing and iteration, we'll arrive at some ratio as technology matures: my guess is it will match the one we find in our own heads: 80% for autonomous functions, 20% for creativity.
Keep in mind, dreaming and recursive self-improvement as it is now, is a big unknown: nobody knows what ratio is best, but honestly it's less important because we're all looking at 'Quality' of results right now.
But as the technology matures and moves into robotics and more, and more complexity is required to 'do work': I expect 80% to be accurate.
> The new research finding shows that the human brain consists of two ancient nervous systems cleverly packaged together — a more primitive part that regulates our hearts’ beating, our breathing and other functions, and another that makes us distinctly human, capable of poetry, mathematics and wondering about our own origins.
I'm not sure the actual article in Nature Neuroscience [1] actually says that. I remember "Your Brain Is Not an Onion With a Tiny Reptile Inside" [2] from a few years ago, but I'm not sure where the dissonance comes from: my own misunderstanding, the press release using a popular but flawed model to communicate with laymen, or these two articles being in direct contradiction with each other?
I learned of the Triune Brain through Carl Sagan's book The Dragons of Eden. It was an engaging, story-telling approach to a somewhat, in hindsight controversial concept. It sounds (oversimplified) like the paper the article describes here is an embryological validation of this model.
Which is the one zombies hunger for and which is the one driving their unstoppable hunger? Maybe they just really miss having their brain whole again, and eating and walking is the only thing they know?
In short, no. The two types of thinking are both forebrain activity. One comes to a quick guess with pattern matching, the other goes slower with reasoning. It could be that some fast thinking is influenced by the hindbrain in some way, but the thoughts themselves are constructs in the conscious mind that inhabits the frontal lobes.
There is some truth (but not accuracy) to it, but not for this reason.
This article is about brainstem (aka hindbrain) vs the rest (midbrain + forebrain).
Evolutionally older animal lineages like fish, reptiles, birds all have midbrain + forebrain as well as the brainstem, so reptilian brain != brainstem.
Where there is some truth to our older "reptilian" brain is that the part of the forebrain called the pallium, that exists even in fish (& reptiles), has much expanded/evolved in mammals giving us our cortex and hippocampus, so you could kinda say that we have a reptilian brain + cortex. Note though that mammals didn't evolve from reptiles - they evolved in parallel from a common ancestor, so maybe better to say we have a fish brain + cortex (& hippocampus).
While the cortex is what gives mammals their intelligence, in birds the pallium evolved in a different way to give them theirs.
There's a very interesting split-brain experiment [1] and Joe Scott's video about it [2]
TL;DW: Doctors treated corpus callosotomy by severing the bundle of nerve fibers that connect hemispheres of the brain. The surgery effectively stopped seizures from spreading. Left hemisphere handles language, speech, and logical interpretation, right hemisphere handles visual, spatial, and literal tasks.
Because human eyes send visual information to opposite sides of the brain, researchers could show images only to the non-speaking right brain. The right brain could see and physically react to the image (like picking up a matching object with the left hand), but the patient couldn't verbally explain what they were seeing because the left brain was literally in the dark. Instead of saying "I don't know," the speaking left brain would instantly and confidently invent a logical—but completely fake—justification for the action.
I feel like, even though they got this knowledge, any researcher at any time could have grown hindbrain cells from pluripotent stem cells -- the resulting practice didn't _require_ the understanding.
I also don't get why they needed a pluripotent stem cell and not, say, another hindbrain neuron. I get the claim that you can't get forebrain neurons to act like hindbrain neurons, but is it possible that every previous researcher who was trying to grow hindbrain neurons in vitro was starting with forebrain neurons?
I don’t think the medical community has believed as the article claims for nearly a century.
Most animal brains have three very different organs in the brain: the cerebrum, cerebellum, and the limbic system (which itself is further divided into numerous differentiated types of tissues)
What is the difference between saying that the brain is two organs, as in the title, or a "composite organ" as in the actual paper? What makes an organ a single autonomous organ?
The digestive tract could also be seen as a single organ since they are connected. I think the deciding criteria should be the one applied in this study, i.e., how an organ develops.
Also, doing high-effort endurance exercise for long enough suppresses grelin production (the hunger hormone). I've seen 30+ minutes of running or 60+ minutes of cycling as the most common rules of thumb.
So in order to stack all these effects to maximum effect: plan exercise before meal, plan mean before doing groceries.
I think there is a better way: The colder something is, the less sweet it will taste. if you warm-up ice cream and taste how sickeningly sweet that soup is, you won't be having so much for a while...
I think that adipose tissue is the biggest criminal when it comes to unwanted hunger, since it produces hormones to make you hungry the moment you actually risk losing weight.
Not sure how much the digestive neurons are involved with hunger actually, I thought its role was more about telling you which foods make you nauseous so you won't eat them, or subconsciously register which nutrients various foods have so you'ld crave the ones compensating for shortages more.
I heard adipose tissue also retains hormones and fat-soluble pollutants, and losing weight releases them and they have to be dealt with by the body in other ways. Specifically, the hormones can cause mood swings, which some individuals have learned to react to with binge eating.
It's cool, but the headline is really pretty misleading.
The new result seems to be that researchers have identified different progenitors for fore/midbrain vs. hindbrain and have found that they can be identified by some specific developmental gene markers. That's genuinely cool.
However, organs are not typically defined by a single tissue characterized by a progenitor that can be labeled with a single gene marker. I suppose it's fine if on a functional and anatomical level you want to split the fore/midbrain and hindbrain into two different "organs", but whether you think of the brain as 1 organ or 2, it really doesn't change much in terms of how you would think about these regions.
It isn't at all surprising that different regions of the brain have localized functions; some of the earliest evidence of this was how focal injuries (like strokes) have characteristic deficit patterns depending on brain region affected, and obviously there has been a lot of work since then further showing the organization, function and development of different brain regions.
I expected an article full of basic medical jargon: cerebrum, cerebellum, cortex, synapse, etc. Instead it's talking about "forebrain" and "hindbrain". This sounds remarkably unscientific.
that's funny when I was in junior school, 15 years ago, I said in the classroom during science class, that we have 2 brains. everyone including my teacher were laughed at me.
Title: "Two parallel neural ectoderm progenitors contribute to the developing brain".
"Hence, we postulate the brain is a composite organ emanating from two lineage-restricted progenitors; these dual progenitors may be evolutionarily conserved across 550 million years from hemichordates to mammals."
I wasn't expecting to get hit by AI generated slop on Standford's website. At least mark the article as being produced by AI.
> “What they found was striking: … These differences essentially locked each progenitor cell into its respective fate, like travelers on parallel tracks that never cross.”
The dramatic colon, the obligatory closing metaphor, makes me ill.
The peer reviewed publication is linked to from the press release. The press release's headline does somewhat overhype up the actual finding though. The actual finding is that different parts of the brain arise from different neural ectoderm progenitors, which explains why it’s so hard to get a forebrain neuron to behave like a hindbrain neuron and vice versa in the lab. The paper then postulates that this difference in progenitors resembles being two different organs evolutionarily, but this is not really the most important part of the paper.
BTW I suspect that this finding comes as completely unsurprising to biologists and the medical field generally. I'm not in either field, but even in high school biology we learned that the brain stem is behaviorally and structurally radically different from the rest of the brain, to the point where it seems almost obvious in hindsight that it's a different cell line and potentially has a different evolutionary history from the rest of the brain.
I worked with a doctor once to build a 3D Model of the brain apertures.
Disclaimer: the work presents these as spiritual/meditational reference points, not established neuroanatomical structures.
Textual reconstruction of the “Brain Apertures” diagram used in the Radhasoami/Surat Shabd Yoga tradition. The named “apertures” are spiritual/meditational reference points in this tradition; labels such as temporal lobe, occipital lobe, cerebellum and brain stem are anatomical landmarks shown in the source diagram in the doc below.
What a way to oversell the discovery.
The reality is:
The headline should have been: "Human forebrain and hindbrain arise from distinct embryonic progenitor lineages" - not that we have "two organs" in the brain.When I studied neuroanatomy in the earl 2000s it was already taught that the evolutionary history of the forebrain (from comparative anatomy) seems to have invaded the hindbrain and seems to control it like a puppet.
> "Human forebrain and hindbrain arise from distinct embryonic progenitor lineages"
I'd have never clicked that headline nor understood why this finding is important.
If you think the original headline is not "truthful" enough, at least do something like "Researchers found the reason why hindbrain cells cannot be grown in a lab and found a way to overcome it"
> not that we have "two organs" in the brain.
Depends what the definition of "organ" actually is. What speaks for different organs here is that the cells both have a different pathway from stem cells and have different evolutionary histories. That is different from other brain regions that may have separate functions but still evolved together.
Saying the truth and communicating well are orthogonal. You can do both.
We should not be wary of loud truths either. Unless we push the envelope we cannot trace back to the essence. Like, as an outsider in this discussion, I am now inclined not only to assess the finding, but also the definition of an organ. The title did good work. Its refutation too. Fencing every statement in unquestionable truth does not make the pursuit of truth stronger.
“…but LLMs can’t” is the unspoken sticking point.
But there’s rarely one correct answer. Conveying the same approximate message to multiple types of readers is extremely difficult in a handful of words. People with subject matter knowledge are annoyed by headlines written for laypeople that don’t know the jargon or have a mental model of the important concepts that jargon represents. They always seem to miss important distinctions, make poor analogies, or the like. Headline-length blurbs that successfully convey those things to the knowledgeable are often utterly opaque to laypeople causing them to ignore articles about topics they’d find interesting. The only option is trying to estimate the subject matter expertise of the audience, and despite many people in the tech world assuming their software knowledge gives them technical expertise in many non-software fields, the layperson headline is absolutely the best approach here.
Not one bit of that justifies actively misleading people. Which is what that headline does.
This is not true. There is a complex relationship between truth and good communication. The relationship is non linear and convoluted and it depends often on the subject of what is being communicated.
There are many many cases where lies are easier to communicate than the truth.
Take tobacco for instance. For the longest time we did not know it was bad for you. It took decades of epidemiological research and statistical techniques to ascertain that it was bad.
The truth was buried in numbers and human knowledge about applied mathematics and statistics. Without centuries of human endeavor to create the concept of science unionized with the rigor of statistics the truth would have remained forever invisible.
The sheer complexity of the truth in this case makes is extremely hard to communicate. We mostly trust that smoking is bad based off of the reputation of the researchers who established that fact. But the truth was never really directly communicated to most of us as it involves diving deep into the data.
> There is a complex relationship between truth and *good* communication. [...] There are many many cases where lies are *easier to communicate* than the truth.
You're literally conflating good communication with easy communication.
Easy communication correlates highly with good communication. It is easier to do good communication on easier topics.
The truth about tobacco was known for years but ignored because 1) industry lobbying and 2) the Nazis were the ones who figured it out, and pushed anti-smoking hard, so smoking became something "our side" did, 3) tobacco was still a huge US export.
It was easy to communicate, but we were motivated to not listen.
No the deaths were buried deep in the statistical data. It’s not apparent and we did not know either way.
Yes there were people who said it’s bad but their word was as good as bullshit because until we had the statistics there is literally no way to truly know.
You understand what I did there?
Ah you told a lie. Demonstrating how easy it is to make it look true.
To me, this suddenly turned the discussion into a fascinating exploration and demonstration of different standards of truthfulness in marketing.
I still don't see how the original headline was not truthful.
It's as truthful and useful as "75.6% of humans who ingest oxygen end up dead".
That’s only wrong because it’s 100%.
Isn't it more like 93%? On the other 7% data is still inconclusive, they never died
Depends on if the study is ongoing
75.6% die is right, it's just that the other 24.4% do too.
I think it's less about what was said (it is truthful) and more what isn't mentioned in the title which leaves ambiguity.
I don't necessarily think it's intentional. For those with knowledge in the field I suspect it resonates the appropriate reaction.
For those outside of the field, I think the perception of what being 2 organs means does a lot of leg work in invoking a response which seems exaggerated, but is probably caused by incorrect assumptions of what the title is trying to convey.
I hope that makes some sense, I feel that was a lot of word vomit but I'm struggling to find the right words, it's somewhat meta
this is a great walk through the curiousity of the hindbrain: https://radiolab.org/podcast/song-of-the-cerebellum
The findings arn't exactly "new" but the medical science about it is definitely lagging current research.
> I'd have never clicked that headline nor understood why this finding is important.
Why do you think it's important?
In the context of a link aggregator, it’s arguably the only thing that matters
You don't think it's important?
You stated that the current headline informs you why the result is important. Why is that? Surely, given that the information was communicated to you, you can share it with me?
What I found important was this: "Researchers found the reason why hindbrain cells cannot be grown in a lab and found a way to overcome it"
But that finding is a direct consecutive of the "cerebellum is a different organ" finding from the headline.
Yeah, this is a frequent failure of science communication. Misleading clickbait overselling a paper that made real progress in some capacity. I'd be more interested in hearing the truth of the matter and about the researchers passion for their study area. Spinning everything into some high stakes breakthrough that fundamentally changes our understanding of the world just makes me feel like my time was maliciously wasted and that I shouldn't click on news about science.
Nonetheless, there is some truth in the headline.
When an organ is known to be generated from 2 distinct embryonic preforms, which become merged and integrated at a later stage of development, there is a likelihood that in some distant ancestor the integration into a single organ was much less advanced than now and possibly the two parts remained as relatively separated organs even during adulthood.
There are many groups of animals that include both some species that have retained a more primitive condition, where some nervous ganglia have remained separated, while other species have a derived condition, where those nervous ganglia have fused into a single ganglion.
In this case it is not known for sure what happened, because the early evolution of the nervous system, from a sensory structure embedded in the skin to a complex internal system that mediates the communication between sensors and motor or secretory organs, is still poorly understood.
In any case, this research confirms that the differences between forebrain+midbrain (which includes the cerebrum) and hindbrain (which includes the cerebellum) are very important, because they become established very early during the development of the embryo, at a time when the progenitors of many organs are still interchangeable.
Given the parallel example cited in the article of jellyfish having two spatially separate organs, & the subsequent speculation that our own ancestors could also have had spacially separate anterior & posterior masses, the title doesn't really seem unreasonable in its hyperbole.
While it might not be perfectly accurate it's hardly misleading.
I found the title confusing, at the very least because it can be argued that the two brain hemispheres are two organs already, as they operate independently when severed from each other.
Totally valid point just as both kidneys are separate organs
This is not a good analogy, because both kidneys do the same thing and we don't need both of them to live.
Whereas the left and right brain hemispheres do different things that enable our species to be what it now is; which is more similar to what the article calls hind and fore/front brains, which again do different things that we wouldn't be us without. We would still be human if we had only one kidney the way we have only one bladder or one pancreas.
Kidneys are more like say lungs, gonads, breasts, or nostrils in that we have +1 extra; but the benefit created by multiplicity is ~doubling or capacity and resilience to local disease and random injury-- not a profound functionality. (Like is created by the second eye or second leg.) Of these, the second breast is radically more useful than the second kidney, and is probably a special case as it changes how we live so evolved.
The right and left hemispheres do different things… unless you had a hemispherectomy as an infant and then one half is able to mostly perform the duties of both.
> hemispherectomy
TIL, gosh!
Though I agree with the detailed differentiation, still for the headline purpose a generic one that resonates with people easily isn't a bad choice
I think "Human brain evolved from two separate organs" would've been more accurate and sufficiently simple/short for a headline, but I guess it won't fly either due to political reasons.
But the evolution isn’t necessarily the important part, it’s the two parts having separate development processes in modern day humans that is notable.
You mean like, "assembled from two separate components"?
More like, they are two separate components, with some interwiring. Components, which we might also call organs. Two of them.
> I think "Human brain evolved from two separate organs" would've been more accurate and sufficiently simple/short for a headline, but I guess it won't fly either due to political reasons.
I don't agree. For that you need to distort the definition of what an organ is to comply the requirement for two separate organs with distinct origin, genetic, and biochemical traits, and different function and responsibilities to somehow remain classified as the same organ.
Lying is always a bad choice. The paper in Nature says
"Hence, we postulate the brain is a composite organ emanating from two lineage-restricted progenitors; these dual progenitors may be evolutionarily conserved across 550 million years from hemichordates to mammals."
If they had written instead:
"Human brain was two separate organs"
Then, both attention grabbig and true?
Human Brain Evolved From Two Separate Organs.
Probably not, because by the time hominids were a thing, it was one.
(if I'm reading parent poster correctly)
Are there other composite organs?
Does the adrenal gland count?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siphonophore
That isn't even remotely related to the parent question. Organisms =/= Organs.
Do you think siphonophores don't have organs?
Yes, but this is left for the next years because they give only one Nobel preis per year.
Often the headline is not created by the author of the article.
Also newspaper headlines used to give a quick summary of the story, online articles as you say, clickbait.
It's much simpler to change "is" to "was"
I don't have a problem with the 'two organs making one' framing. The fact that they are 'symbiotic' now doesn't change that. In fact it helps me understand two key facts. One can't grow out of the other, and they work differently. Great
The Portuguese Man o’ War[0] is a symbiotic organism. If you want to get technical, I guess we are, as well. We’re really kind of fascinating meatbags.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_man_o%27_war
We are absolutely symbiotic from our cells upward. A large percentage of your body mass is bacteria, including the symbiotic bacteria you feed in your gut with the food you think you’re eating only for yourself.
They also use this result to great hindbrain neurons in the lab for the first time, so it's a strikingly useful discovery.
I think it's also fair to say they are different organs based on the developmental physiology. Many other organs come from distinct embryonic cell lines.
I'm sorry, it just sounds like you're mad at medical researcher for trying to make their research more accessible?
What do you mean by oversell? And why do you think the general public would be more apt to understand "distinct embryonic progenitor lineages" than "two organs"?
What exactly is the problem here? You think medical researcher are using medial nomenclature wrong?
Honestly write a paper about it then.
> “…make their research more accessible.”
I wanted a drawing, but was disappointed.
But third item means that there are two organs almost by definition, so original headline maybe slightly sensationalist, but not technically false.
Instead of starting a meaningless argument about the title, try reading the article. It explains the significance of this discovery.
Main issue I have with the title is it immediately reminded me about McGilchrist's "The Divided Brain" and I thought they meant the two halves - but that is not the case.
So the question still remains...
https://www.ted.com/talks/iain_mcgilchrist_the_divided_brain
This is meaningless semantic drama over a meaningful discovery. From a biological and medical perspective, the collective term "organ" is pretty useless, if there is a distinct progenitor lineage. For the sake of a simplified explanation for the public, describing this discovery as finding "two organs" is absolutely fair.
A similar example: The melanocytes in the skin originate from the neural crest, not the epidermis. As a significant consequence, melanocytes share cell attributes with neurons. One of these attributes is the ability to infiltrate other tissues. Because of that, malignant transformation of melanocytes has vastly different consequences, compared to epithelial cells. If you asked your doctor why squamous cell cancer and melanoma have such different prognoses, describing your skin as effectively "two organs" would be illustrative and easy to understand, without getting into developmental biology.
Agree on the ancient knowledge and some other interesting aspects I discovered when working with a Doctor who modeled 3D Brain apertures with me.
Comments somewhere down below has details.
No one will want to open your headline.
I've found it useful to think in terms of how such structures might have evolved. The beginning state is always something very simple: the first nerve. It must go from A to B. Perhaps from a food sensing area to a muscle. Sense food, stop moving, something like that. Organisms could evolve multiple copies of that structure: N nerves going from A(n) to B(n). At some point the next invention arises: some logic gate type thing that branches and/or combines nerves. So now sensing food can make movement stop and also digestion begin. Or food response can be attenuated during the day time. And so on. There's no reason why you'd have exactly one of these "nerve processor" nodes. There's also no reason why several different kinds of them and different instances might evolve. They're useful. Then at some point the next discovery is made: by combining several nerve processor nodes in close proximity, with their own inter-node connections, you can perform more complex processing. You've now got a proto-brain. But again there's nothing to say you have exactly one of these things, or that they're exact replicas of each other.
It’s the PR arm of a university, they always do this.
Pretty much, and they've less shame than a British tabloid in how far they go.
When submitting, one can try to replace the title with something honest. HN does not favor that, mostly due to submitters having their own biases.
The best tactic is finding a higher quality article on the subject, to submit instead. That's uncertain, takes time, and may run into paywall issues.
Possibly making matters worse, this is from Stanford where they had the university president caught engaging in fraud on Alzheimer’s research.
Possibly, but I wouldn't assume any connection. In sociological terms, modern universities are mid-last-millennium noble houses*, locked in an endless competition for power, wealth, prestige, and influence. Adding a few stanzas of hyperbole when bragging about one of their knights vanquishing some infidel of ignorance? That's simply how things are done.
*Yes, there's never really a king or duke or whatever. But consider the history of the word regent.
I think you're right. And I would even assume that, should the article be from Fox News (just an example), every other commenter that excuses the title would have yelled at journalism slop, clickbait and whatnot.
But that's stanford.edu, so we must tread lightly.
Agreed. Anybody who looks at a picture of the brain can see the cerebellum (part of the hindbrain) is obviously a different organ. I only clicked the link to find out if there was any new science buried under the hype of the title.
we already knew the last part, they’ve just defined it a little better
If the two parts arise independently, then the headline may be a bit clunky but it is technically correct.
I mean, I learned a bunch of neat new stuff, so I’m excited!
Additionally the only images in the linked article are also face pics of the researchers instead of anything on the information about said research.
I want to trust science and dislike anti vaxxers but it’s difficult to argue against them when researchers act like the caricature they are mocked as.
Self aggrandizing articles with misleading headlines is giving me 2 triggers for not trusting the content.
Oh, I think we could crank that headline even harder while still keeping one toe on the truth. For example:
"Elon Musk's Brain is Two Separate Organs"
Both of Taylor Swift's Brains are Over 500 Million Years Old
People with maternal Jewish DNA have two brains.
You'll be SHOCKED at what we found out about Taylor Swift's TWO BRAINS - that's flying much closer to the sun.
"and both are asbestos-free"
I'm pretty sure the third thesis has been taught in my university physiology classes 20 years ago, too.
> They identified two different brain progenitor cells. One, which expresses a gene called Otx2, is destined to become the forebrain and midbrain. The other, which expresses a gene called Gbx2, is committed to forming the hindbrain. They showed that these two cell populations never overlap; they are mutually exclusive from the earliest stages of development.
Very cool. Never thought the brain could have two completely different ancestors
Fun fact: the hindbrain progenitor cell is shaped like a little lizard.
The lizard brain, not because it resembles the brain of a lizard, but because it's made up of a trillion tiny lizards
I bet you can tune hyperparameters on the MRI so that the resulting image makes the lizard brain look like a lizard, too.
Because they are proudly causing animalistic, degenerate behavior like Lizzo.
and from another post on the front page right now https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49735541 :
"Nervous systems are typically defined as networks of neurons that communicate across synapses. But Burkhardt’s lab found something unique in ctenophores: Beneath the animal’s outer surface is a nerve net (pink mesh in this 3D reconstruction) whose neurons are connected by continuous cytoplasm — but with no synapses between them. “I don’t think any other animal has a nervous system like that,” Burkhardt said. Because ctenophores are one of the earliest branches of the animal family tree, the finding indicates that evolution may have crafted nervous systems twice: in ctenophores, and separately in jellyfish and all other animals."
Funny thing when reading that is as a human I read „crafted nervous system twice” like it would be done over a week or two.
We fail to imagine how much time takes to „craft a nervous system”.
Super scary how small are we in big scheme of things.
https://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/senses/eye/
at one point I learned that it would only take a few hundred thousand years to evolve an eye, and time felt much deeper.
I think the fact that the sentence says we share the nervous system with jellyfish gives a good indication of that.
Why would it be surprising?
All parts of the body are built like this. Otherwise we would be blobs.
Before becoming two parts they probably were part of the same parent protobrain tissue.
If you told me the hindbrain was ectoderm-derived but the forebrain was endoderm-derived, I might raise an eyebrow or two.
> Before becoming two parts they probably were part of the same parent protobrain tissue.
Article says they weren't.
> All parts of the body are built like this.
Please name one other organ that arises from two separate progenitor cell types. If this is common, I have never heard of it.
Well, your heart contains both mesoderm derived cells (enervation) and ectoderm derived cells (musculature).
The really exciting thing in this article is that this research led them to a new technique for growing brain stem cells in vitro, which has been very difficult until now. If that isn't being oversold, it's big news. That's going to make future research into diseases like ALS a lot easier.
It really fascinates me how dumb HN community is considering they know nothing about brain on the level of actual experts yet readily comment it as “non important” based on vibes.
If this is not your area of expertise why comment with stunning confidence on something you have no idea about?
Ego?
The actual research says something far less clickworthy. Are Stanford's PR dribbles now created by LLMs ?
"Two parallel neural ectoderm progenitors contribute to the developing brain
Abstract When and how different brain regions diversify from one another remains unresolved.
Does a common neural ectoderm progenitor generate the entire brain? Or do multiple neural ectoderm progenitors exist, each restricted to form specific brain regions?
Here our lineage tracing studies of mouse embryos support the latter model. Two parallel brain progenitors emerge simultaneously during gastrulation: anterior neural ectoderm (forebrain/midbrain progenitor) and posterior neural ectoderm (hindbrain progenitor). Differentiation of human pluripotent stem cells into anterior or posterior neural ectoderm-like cells revealed these were lineage committed to forebrain/midbrain versus hindbrain fates, respectively. They harbored diverging chromatin landscapes foreshadowing future forebrain/midbrain versus hindbrain identities. We further differentiated human pluripotent stem cells into hindbrain rhombomere 5/6-specific motor neurons, which were hitherto difficult to generate in vitro.
Hence, we postulate the brain is a composite organ emanating from two lineage-restricted progenitors; these dual progenitors may be evolutionarily conserved across 550 million years from hemichordates to mammals."
I think it's very interesting news. We've known about the brain's separate parts, and separate functions for a while. It was always assumed our evolution of the brain was neatly, and tidily tucked away as somethat that branches off a singular thing. A single step from the pluripotent, 'infinitely renewable' stem cell into another single progenitor.
This suggested a sequence of events, causes and effects, that somehow our minds today can be evolved from a singular 'step' within growth. Only our brains seems have this requirement.
So this requirement, in and of itself, is interesting and newsworthy. For whatever purposes, it's 2 separate systems that many living organisms evolve in the same way. It's 2 steps, for some physical reason.
bioRxiv preprint July 2025 [0]
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY 4.0 International license.
[0] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.07.02.662771v2
PDF is free to download.
All the comments I see are about is it two organs, or a composite organ.
Surely the interesting thing is the ability to grow hindbrain cells in vitreo. That's what's potentially going to lead to the cure of lots of things, not whether 1=2.
Fun fact: 80% of the brain's neurons are in the cerebellum, not the cortex.
In other words: only <20% of pur neuron budget goes to higher cognition (thinking, language, seeing, hearing). 80% is spent on motor skills.
> 80% is spent on motor skills.
The cerebellum isn't just for motor skills. It's more of a place where very commonly used patterns get a bunch of dedicated wetware so the computation is superfast and precise. In an (undoubtedly very limited) analogy a bunch of FPGAs to complement the general processing. It does make a lot of sense to use this functionality for motor skills, though.
See:
- https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4089997/
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38663092/
So the 80% is spent on, more generally, habits and intuition. Makes sense.
It's spent on 'fast, effortless' recall. Maybe, long-term memory, or memories associated with activities like balance, singing, and anything that requires precise steady control.
A keeper of balance and rhythm, if you want to think of it that way, and anything that is too much of a burden to creativity: a mind is a bunch of ideas (thoughts) collected into a moment in the mind, all the ones needed for controlling things like balance and rhythm are best handled in an autonomously looped fashion (think Cybernetics: control loops that guide an agent).
The article mentions the forebrain controls creativity, reasoning, higher-level thinking. And the hindbrain controls muscles of the throat, tongue, etc: so speech, singing. We all reach for some 'flow' state: perhaps it's this state where the 80% and 20% are more in harmony within the mind. Where what we create with our minds is appreciated, and the outer loop that critiques ourselves lays quiet. 'Flow' is achieved.
Everything becomes an autonomous loop: which is the study of Cybernetics, and (coincidentally?) the birthplace of AI.
If we follow the pattern of simulating biology, I would expect some ratio of compute could be determined 'optimal' for the new Dream-RSI technique recently: https://www.dream-rsi.com/ to eventually move towards '80%' of compute for autonomously controlled systems, and 20% towards 'something else'. The ratio won't be there in the beginning because an AI system has different autonomous needs.
Through testing and iteration, we'll arrive at some ratio as technology matures: my guess is it will match the one we find in our own heads: 80% for autonomous functions, 20% for creativity.
Keep in mind, dreaming and recursive self-improvement as it is now, is a big unknown: nobody knows what ratio is best, but honestly it's less important because we're all looking at 'Quality' of results right now.
But as the technology matures and moves into robotics and more, and more complexity is required to 'do work': I expect 80% to be accurate.
The result is the same: mindless scrolling consumes 80% of my brain while the 20% struggles to ever get anything done :)
When cache is bigger than the database.
Well it's not bigger...
Headline for IEEE: biologists show that human brain is basically a big FPGA devboard.
Oh, so Moravec’s Paradox is not really a paradox, it’s just an illusion! ;-)
Related https://www.newscientist.com/article/2589739-our-brain-evolv... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49755533
> The new research finding shows that the human brain consists of two ancient nervous systems cleverly packaged together — a more primitive part that regulates our hearts’ beating, our breathing and other functions, and another that makes us distinctly human, capable of poetry, mathematics and wondering about our own origins.
I'm not sure the actual article in Nature Neuroscience [1] actually says that. I remember "Your Brain Is Not an Onion With a Tiny Reptile Inside" [2] from a few years ago, but I'm not sure where the dissonance comes from: my own misunderstanding, the press release using a popular but flawed model to communicate with laymen, or these two articles being in direct contradiction with each other?
[1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-026-02433-7 [2]: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0963721420917687
"Your Brain Is Not an Onion With a Tiny Reptile Inside" is a really stupid and pretentious article arguing against a straw man.
[2] is an annoying pedantic article that illustrates little beyond a misconception of a misconception.
I learned of the Triune Brain through Carl Sagan's book The Dragons of Eden. It was an engaging, story-telling approach to a somewhat, in hindsight controversial concept. It sounds (oversimplified) like the paper the article describes here is an embryological validation of this model.
Hm, I’m of two minds on this one.
I'm of more than two minds all the time. (A bunch of my friends are, too...)
Tabloid like headline...
Pity about the dumbed down for dummies, fake marketing from Stanford.
Which is the one zombies hunger for and which is the one driving their unstoppable hunger? Maybe they just really miss having their brain whole again, and eating and walking is the only thing they know?
Does each separate “organ” here have any relationship to the two separate functions identified in “Thinking, Fast and Slow”?
In short, no. The two types of thinking are both forebrain activity. One comes to a quick guess with pattern matching, the other goes slower with reasoning. It could be that some fast thinking is influenced by the hindbrain in some way, but the thoughts themselves are constructs in the conscious mind that inhabits the frontal lobes.
So, what we colloquially call 'reptile brain' turns out to be somewhat accurate.
There is some truth (but not accuracy) to it, but not for this reason.
This article is about brainstem (aka hindbrain) vs the rest (midbrain + forebrain).
Evolutionally older animal lineages like fish, reptiles, birds all have midbrain + forebrain as well as the brainstem, so reptilian brain != brainstem.
Where there is some truth to our older "reptilian" brain is that the part of the forebrain called the pallium, that exists even in fish (& reptiles), has much expanded/evolved in mammals giving us our cortex and hippocampus, so you could kinda say that we have a reptilian brain + cortex. Note though that mammals didn't evolve from reptiles - they evolved in parallel from a common ancestor, so maybe better to say we have a fish brain + cortex (& hippocampus).
While the cortex is what gives mammals their intelligence, in birds the pallium evolved in a different way to give them theirs.
There's a very interesting split-brain experiment [1] and Joe Scott's video about it [2]
TL;DW: Doctors treated corpus callosotomy by severing the bundle of nerve fibers that connect hemispheres of the brain. The surgery effectively stopped seizures from spreading. Left hemisphere handles language, speech, and logical interpretation, right hemisphere handles visual, spatial, and literal tasks.
Because human eyes send visual information to opposite sides of the brain, researchers could show images only to the non-speaking right brain. The right brain could see and physically react to the image (like picking up a matching object with the left hand), but the patient couldn't verbally explain what they were seeing because the left brain was literally in the dark. Instead of saying "I don't know," the speaking left brain would instantly and confidently invent a logical—but completely fake—justification for the action.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TYuTid9a6k
I feel like, even though they got this knowledge, any researcher at any time could have grown hindbrain cells from pluripotent stem cells -- the resulting practice didn't _require_ the understanding. I also don't get why they needed a pluripotent stem cell and not, say, another hindbrain neuron. I get the claim that you can't get forebrain neurons to act like hindbrain neurons, but is it possible that every previous researcher who was trying to grow hindbrain neurons in vitro was starting with forebrain neurons?
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49755533
I don’t think the medical community has believed as the article claims for nearly a century.
Most animal brains have three very different organs in the brain: the cerebrum, cerebellum, and the limbic system (which itself is further divided into numerous differentiated types of tissues)
TFA refers to the evolutionarily history of the brain, not the specialised functionality of different parts of the brain.
Not just humans… all mammals.
Isn’t it funny how Freud, and probably earlier thinkers, have suggested exactly that the mind is layered like this.
What is the difference between saying that the brain is two organs, as in the title, or a "composite organ" as in the actual paper? What makes an organ a single autonomous organ?
The digestive tract could also be seen as a single organ since they are connected. I think the deciding criteria should be the one applied in this study, i.e., how an organ develops.
I can see how one of these is the gut feelings origin, and other bodily feelings.
I thought this was widely known, at least for males, where the second one can be found in the lower half of the body.
We are going to have to deprecate an idiom or two. "I'm in two minds about something" now gives the wrong meaning.
Not to mention the gut brain-- That's the organ I blame for the ice cream I just ate
The best way to stop eating ice cream is to stop buying ice cream. If it's in the freezer, it'll be eaten.
But how do you stop buying ice cream?
Fill your freezer with frozen food other than ice cream.
You buy your groceries while that piece of your brain has no excuse to make loud demands ;-)
Eat your dinner before going to the shop.
Also, doing high-effort endurance exercise for long enough suppresses grelin production (the hunger hormone). I've seen 30+ minutes of running or 60+ minutes of cycling as the most common rules of thumb.
So in order to stack all these effects to maximum effect: plan exercise before meal, plan mean before doing groceries.
I think there is a better way: The colder something is, the less sweet it will taste. if you warm-up ice cream and taste how sickeningly sweet that soup is, you won't be having so much for a while...
The best ice cream I ever had was at a small shop in Athens that had unsweetened ice cream.
I think that adipose tissue is the biggest criminal when it comes to unwanted hunger, since it produces hormones to make you hungry the moment you actually risk losing weight.
Not sure how much the digestive neurons are involved with hunger actually, I thought its role was more about telling you which foods make you nauseous so you won't eat them, or subconsciously register which nutrients various foods have so you'ld crave the ones compensating for shortages more.
I heard adipose tissue also retains hormones and fat-soluble pollutants, and losing weight releases them and they have to be dealt with by the body in other ways. Specifically, the hormones can cause mood swings, which some individuals have learned to react to with binge eating.
It's cool, but the headline is really pretty misleading.
The new result seems to be that researchers have identified different progenitors for fore/midbrain vs. hindbrain and have found that they can be identified by some specific developmental gene markers. That's genuinely cool.
However, organs are not typically defined by a single tissue characterized by a progenitor that can be labeled with a single gene marker. I suppose it's fine if on a functional and anatomical level you want to split the fore/midbrain and hindbrain into two different "organs", but whether you think of the brain as 1 organ or 2, it really doesn't change much in terms of how you would think about these regions.
It isn't at all surprising that different regions of the brain have localized functions; some of the earliest evidence of this was how focal injuries (like strokes) have characteristic deficit patterns depending on brain region affected, and obviously there has been a lot of work since then further showing the organization, function and development of different brain regions.
The impact is rather that is explains the failure of attempts to cultivate cell cultures of brainstem cells.
I expected an article full of basic medical jargon: cerebrum, cerebellum, cortex, synapse, etc. Instead it's talking about "forebrain" and "hindbrain". This sounds remarkably unscientific.
that's funny when I was in junior school, 15 years ago, I said in the classroom during science class, that we have 2 brains. everyone including my teacher were laughed at me.
The title is factually incorrect and is not what the research actually found:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-026-02433-7
Title: "Two parallel neural ectoderm progenitors contribute to the developing brain".
"Hence, we postulate the brain is a composite organ emanating from two lineage-restricted progenitors; these dual progenitors may be evolutionarily conserved across 550 million years from hemichordates to mammals."
A bicameral mind cool
Actually, the mind should only exist in the forebrain:0
I wasn't expecting to get hit by AI generated slop on Standford's website. At least mark the article as being produced by AI.
> “What they found was striking: … These differences essentially locked each progenitor cell into its respective fate, like travelers on parallel tracks that never cross.”
The dramatic colon, the obligatory closing metaphor, makes me ill.
I went to see Michael Gazzanigga talk about hemispheric separation some years ago. Fascinating. The two hemispheres can operate separately.
How occurate its any experts ?
This isn't peer reviewed, just a press release. 10 other "papers" will be published in the next 2 weeks counterfinding anything in this post.
Science moves forward yet again with a few backward steps.
Here is the peer reviewed publication in Nature Neuroscience:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-026-02433-7
The peer reviewed publication is linked to from the press release. The press release's headline does somewhat overhype up the actual finding though. The actual finding is that different parts of the brain arise from different neural ectoderm progenitors, which explains why it’s so hard to get a forebrain neuron to behave like a hindbrain neuron and vice versa in the lab. The paper then postulates that this difference in progenitors resembles being two different organs evolutionarily, but this is not really the most important part of the paper.
BTW I suspect that this finding comes as completely unsurprising to biologists and the medical field generally. I'm not in either field, but even in high school biology we learned that the brain stem is behaviorally and structurally radically different from the rest of the brain, to the point where it seems almost obvious in hindsight that it's a different cell line and potentially has a different evolutionary history from the rest of the brain.
I thought the PR article did a decent job or saying just that, except maybe for the title
Yeah, agreed. It's mostly just the title that is overhyped.
no idea what you're talking about.
watson and crick's paper was not peer reviewed, neither were darwin's papers.
not sure what you think happens in peer review but it's probably overrated.
Darwin submitted and presented his work to the Linnean Society of London — with papers by Darwin published by the society.
Darwin wrote his book Origin of Species the following year.
The problem right now is that there aren't enough peer reviewers.
I don't think that's the problem.
One problem is that there's no good incentive to spend significant time doing good peer review.
Wintermute and neuromancer!
And that's why we oftentimes talk about "brains" in the plural
I worked with a doctor once to build a 3D Model of the brain apertures.
Disclaimer: the work presents these as spiritual/meditational reference points, not established neuroanatomical structures.
Textual reconstruction of the “Brain Apertures” diagram used in the Radhasoami/Surat Shabd Yoga tradition. The named “apertures” are spiritual/meditational reference points in this tradition; labels such as temporal lobe, occipital lobe, cerebellum and brain stem are anatomical landmarks shown in the source diagram in the doc below.
Some details here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N9KxIWNF_z9twZurRgkTLljf...