The brain on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel

[Math Is Hard]

This painting is being used for the cover of my behavioral neuroscience text for the reasons mentioned at this link:
http://www.thecaveonline.com/APEH/michelangelosbrain.html

I am sure it is all purely coincidental but it is still fun to look at.

 

[Math Is Hard]

p.s. I wanted to put this in Skepticism and Debunking but for some reason the tags wouldn't work there. Everytime I hit preview all I got was a link to the image. :confused:

 

[JamesU]

I don't think this is supposed to be a brain.

 

[stoned]

outrage !

 

[DocToxyn]

Upon reading the title and seeing the painting, I can definitely see the "brain" in the image. Of course this is coming from a neuroscientist who also knows that the brain "likes" to make associations between recognizable images and the abstract. But I have seen a lot of brain in my time and that shape is pretty "brainy". We'll have to see what Moonbear thinks, she's a cerebrophile as well.

I can also agree with the statement in the link which talks about God imparting life upon Adam. He certainly seems alive in the picture, eyes open, upper body propped up on elbow, arm raised. Perhaps this was the moment of "neural enlightenment" as depicted by Michelangelo and imagined by Meshberger, or perhaps simply the moment after life was given. It's provoking...

 

[Adrian Baker]

I've been told by a Biologist friend that without a doubt it is a human Brain. It is too exact and Michaelangelo was of course known for dissecting humans; his knowledge of anatomy was second to none in that era.

It has been suggested by some, that Michaelangelo was having a cruel joke on his paymasters by putting God inside a Human brain - the implication being that that is where God resides.. as a thought of Man only.

Wow! They don't tell you that at the Vatican!

 

[zoobyshoe]

The question is "Did Michaelangelo intend to suggest a brain to the viewer?" It would be very hard to make a case that he did, given the time it was painted. How many Catholics back then had any idea what a human brain looked like? Did Michaelangelo associate the brain with "intelligence"? As I recall, didn't people believe that the organ of thinking was the heart back then?

It is a "brainy" shape to my eyes as well, but he could easily have arrived at the same shape by throwing down some drapery, randomly to get inspiration for a background for his "creator" image. It is essentially drapery.

 

[Adrian Baker]

The question is "Did Michaelangelo intend to suggest a brain to the viewer?" It would be very hard to make a case that he did, given the time it was painted.

No, the idea was that he alone, the artist, would know and that no one else would.
He was (possibly that is, it is only a theory) sticking a finger up at the church.

 

[Joel]

The question is "Did Michaelangelo intend to suggest a brain to the viewer?" It would be very hard to make a case that he did, given the time it was painted. How many Catholics back then had any idea what a human brain looked like? Did Michaelangelo associate the brain with "intelligence"? As I recall, didn't people believe that the organ of thinking was the heart back then?

I'm a bit fuzzy on the time scale, but I think the brain was thought to be a 'cooling system' for blood at some point. At what point this was, would of course be of interest, anyone?

 

[zoobyshoe]

No, the idea was that he alone, the artist, would know and that no one else would.
He was (possibly that is, it is only a theory) sticking a finger up at the church.

This theory kind of goes against the picture of Michaelangelo we get from the stories. One story is that he overheard two guys attributing his unsignedPieta to a different sculptor. That night he went in and carved "This statue was sculpted by Michaelangelo Buonarroti," or some such explicit thing, on the sculpture.(Whatever it says is still there to be plainly seen). It doesn't seem he would bother with any such insult (the brain thing) if he, alone, would know it was there.

 

[Huckleberry]

Considering the similarities between the painting and the human brain, and knowing Michelangelo's familiarity with human anatomy, I think it is far more likely that the image is intentionally represented as a human brain. What Michelangleo intended this to mean I am not sure of.

 

[JamesU]

Maybe it means "knowledge"

 

[zoobyshoe]

I'm a bit fuzzy on the time scale, but I think the brain was thought to be a 'cooling system' for blood at some point. At what point this was, would of course be of interest, anyone?

Yes, the brain thing is only potentially possible if we can prove Michaelangelo thought the brain was the seat of intelligence, which might not be the case.

 

[JamesU]

(zooby...zooby! you quoted the wrong thing)

 

[Huckleberry]

Hippocrates (b. 460 bc) of Cos in Asia Minor, is better known. He was an Asclepiad -- i.e. a member of the medical guild, and is the originator of the Hippocratic Oath (click here to read it. But note: Contrary to popular belief, few if any doctors are required to take this or any other oath!). Despite his background, he preferred to avoid mystical interpretations and stick close to the empirical evidence. For example, in a treatise called “On the sacred disease” (meaning epilepsy), he dismissed the usual demonic-possession theory and suggested that it was an hereditary disease of the brain.

http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/neurophysio.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_of_Adam
It has been speculated that the brain is the seat of behavior for millenia. Anatomy was an important part of the Renaissance.

 

[zoobyshoe]

(zooby...zooby! you quoted the wrong thing)

Not that I'm aware of.

 

[Huckleberry]

Maybe it means "knowledge"

I think that may be a good guess. This would be a controversial meaning. The tree of knowledge was forbidden to Adam and Eve. It is the source of the original sin. Showing God presenting man with knowledge could be interpreted as an attack on the catholic faith. What was Michelangelo's religious background? Are there any other possible meanings?

 

[zoobyshoe]

It has been speculated that the brain is the seat of behavior for millenia. Anatomy was an important part of the Renaissance.

What did Michaelangelo think the brain did? That's what matters. If we can find a quote from him saying he believed the brain was the seat of intelligence, or the organ of thought, then this brain-in-the-painting theory has a chance.

 

[Joel]

Scrap that 'cooling system' thing, according to my neuroscience book the brain was indeed concidered to be responcible for behaviour already at the roman time (thanks to some gladiator physican called Galen). However, by poking the brain with a finger he observed that the cerebrum is soft and the cerebellum had hallows chambers, ventricles. His obvious conclusion was that the soft part received and stored sensory input and the hard, hallow part worked like a hydralik pump, controlling muscles through - what he thought - was hollow neurons. But it was not like all this had anything to do with intelligence, not even descartes thought that and he lived in the 17th century. So, the hydraulic notion prevailed through the renesanse, according to this book (bear, connors, paradiso).

Of course, this doesn't say anything about what Michelangelo did or didn't know at the time.

 

[Moonbear]

Upon reading the title and seeing the painting, I can definitely see the "brain" in the image. Of course this is coming from a neuroscientist who also knows that the brain "likes" to make associations between recognizable images and the abstract. But I have seen a lot of brain in my time and that shape is pretty "brainy". We'll have to see what Moonbear thinks, she's a cerebrophile as well.

It's a sheep brain! :rofl: The shape isn't quite right for a human brain, but it's just about right for a ruminant. Oh, and it even has the pituitary attached! And, in case anyone is uncertain, it appears to be a mid-saggital cut. :rofl:

 

[zoobyshoe]

Spritis, Brain and Minds: The Historical Evolution of Concepts of the Mind
Address:http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n16/history/mind-history_i.html

This gives a brief overview of the history of people's conceptions about the brain.

Artistotle, it appears, was the originator of the "cooling system" notion.

Da Vinci seems to have believed the brain was the seat of intelligence, but that was his personal assessment. The great anatomist, Vesalius, was drawing great pictures of the brain while at the same time proposing the ventricles were the storage place of "animal spirits".

So, the function of the brain was not generally agreed upon and there is no telling what Michaelangelo might have thought about it.

 

[Huckleberry]

What did Michaelangelo think the brain did? That's what matters. If we can find a quote from him saying he believed the brain was the seat of intelligence, or the organ of thought, then this brain-in-the-painting theory has a chance.

I think the brain in the painting theory is already relevant. It seems more likely to me that Michelangelo would recognize the images that he puts into his art, especially ones that carry such a potent message.


This is kind of interesting
http://www.svcc.edu/academics/classes/murray/Ezine/sistine.html

What Michelangelo Thought
After Michelangelo had finished his work on the Sistine Chapel he wrote a poem of his agony during the painting of this Sistine Chapel.



I've got myself a goiter from this strain,
As water gives the cats in Lombardy
Or maybe it is in some other country;
My belly's pushed by force beneath my chin.

My beard toward Heaven, I feel the back of my brain
Upon my neck, I grow the breast of a Harpy;
My brush, above my face continually,
Makes a splendid floor by dripping down.


My Lins have penetrated to my paunch,
My rump's a crupper, as a counterweight,
And pointless the unseeing steps I go.



In front of me my skin is being stretched
While it folds up behind and forms a knot,
And I am bending like a Syrian bow.


And judgment, hence must grow,
Borne in mind, peculiar and untrue;
You cannot shoot well when the gun's askew.


John, come to the rescue
Of my dead painting now, and of my honor;
I'm not in a good place, and I'm no painter.

 

[Huckleberry]

http://quotes.prolix.nu/Authors/?Michelangelo

This site quotes michelangelo and there are several quotes where michelangelo refers to the brain as the center of thought.

 

[Evo]

The symbol of the apple was in very popular use when depiciting scenes from the garden of eden during Michelangelo's time. When adam & eve ate of the forbidden fruit, they gained knowledge.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think the brain in the painting theory is already relevant.

Not if Michaelangelo thought it was a cooling system.

It seems more likely to me that Michelangelo would recognize the images that he puts into his art, especially ones that carry such a potent message.

Not if the "potent message' is a product of your imagination. What it looks like to you has no particular bearing to what Michaelangelo saw in it. Find for me what Michaelangelo thought about the function of the brain.

 

[zoobyshoe]

http://quotes.prolix.nu/Authors/?Michelangelo

This site quotes michelangelo and there are several quotes where michelangelo refers to the brain as the center of thought.

"A man paints with his brains and not with his hands"

That works.

 

[JamesU]

Zooby's on our side now

 

[zoobyshoe]

Zooby's on our side now

From Math Is Hard's link:

"NOTE TO APEH STUDENTS:
On the first day of class we expressed the concept that throughout this course there would be no right or wrong, only that which you could prove or not prove. Now that you have written the Renaissance Essay consider your views in light of this "new" evidence. In writing your essay, how much did you use your intellect. did you simply take the safe traditional route or did you really think before you wrote? "

So, the ability to prove Michaelangelo believed the brain was the seat of thought is all that's important here, since that wasn't necessarily the common view at the time.

 

[Huckleberry]

There are 9 scenes from the book of Genesis depicted on the cieling of the sistine chapel. These include the creation of man and the original sin. Some sites that I checked out said that Michelangelo was a religious man that was conflicted with his homosexuality. It seems that he was homosexual, but I am dubious of how conflicted he may have been. He was not pleased to be painting the Sistine Chapel.

I don't know why he put the image of God in what appears to be the image of a human (errr, sheep) brain.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don't know why he put the image of God in what appears to be the image of a human (errr, sheep) brain.

God, and the angels with him, are depicted against drapery. This was a very common device at the time. Angels, saints etc. floated in the sky surrounded by swirling drapery.

Is this drapery really a brain, or is that just the old seeing-animals-in-the-cloud thing?

 

[JamesU]

It looks like a hollow hemisphere.

 

[Huckleberry]

I can't say for certain that it is a brain. The evidence seems to heavily suggest it. Michelangelo believed the brain was the center of thought. He was an accomplished Renaissance artist who would be familiar with symbolism in art. Biologists concur that the image does indeed resemble a brain of some type. The image of a brain in this context can carry significant meaning. And Michelangelo may have had a personal religious conflict in this regard that would inspire the image.

Certainly not conclusive, but it does suggest to me that it is meant to resemble a brain and is not just a coincidence.

 

[zoobyshoe]

The evidence seems to heavily suggest it. Michelangelo believed the brain was the center of thought. He was an accomplished Renaissance artist who would be familiar with symbolism in art. Biologists concur that the image does indeed resemble a brain of some type. The image of a brain in this context can carry significant meaning. And Michelangelo may have had a personal religious conflict in this regard that would inspire the image.

No, you're connecting some dots via a confirmational bias. There is really no obvious signifigance to the shape at all.

 

[JamesU]

Yet another PF investigation begins! (watch out)

 

[Huckleberry]

No, you're connecting some dots via a confirmational bias. There is really no obvious signifigance to the shape at all.

Besides the first sentence, which one of those statements is untrue? What evidence would one need to make a convincing argument?