h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Typos above, so links are repeated. I believe count is correct now:

Days, "Creation": http://www.medafile.com/MiaCoda/Cdays.TIF
Day 1, "Let there be light": http://www.medafile.com/MiaCoda/Cday1.TIF
Day 2, "Separate water/sky": http://www.medafile.com/MiaCoda/Cday2.TIF
Day 3, "Make land, plants": http://www.medafile.com/MiaCoda/Cday3.TIF
Day 4, "Make sun, moon": http://www.medafile.com/MiaCoda/Cday4.TIF
Day 6, "Make man": http://www.medafile.com/MiaCoda/Cday6.TIF

The images are not in order in the presentation on the Sistine Chapel ceiling. However, the progressive complexity of the matrix surrounding God is consistent with the order in Genesis. Once one accepts that Day 6 portays a human brain, then there is a clear reason to consider that the cloaks surrounding God at the earlier developmental stages could also be depictions of the brain. From my work with brains, it appears to me that the depictions of all 5 pictures are possibly brains (or primitive nervous systems), with a progression of complexity that is consistent with phylogenetic evolution. Acceptance of this observation will depend on experience with comparative neuroanatomy and willingness to perceive abstract presentations in this fashion.

Another question raised here is whether Michelangelo's placement of God in progressively more developed brain images in conjunction with specific days of Creation as described in Genesis, can be linked conceptually to the "theory" of evolution. This is a critical presentation issue. The progressive development of more complex organisms over time, I believe, is the essence of the theory of evolution, which is accurately portrayed by Michelangelo, and the critical organ really is the brain. How to distinguish Michelangelo's portrayal as distinct from current concepts of evolution is interesting, but the motivation to draw this distinction may be more emotional and religious than philosophical or scientific.

I have been reading some literature about Michelangelo (Rolf Schott, 1964), which predates Meshberger's 1990 observation. Michelangelo's beliefs were a combination of Dante's concepts along with Greek and Roman ideas, with an unclear relationship to christianity. Given his unique studies (anatomical dissections) and insights, his portayal of brain development on the Sistine Chapel ceiling is plausible.

I do not understand the comment: "Attributing it to the originator of the theory is much more on point."

Hi, Washford:

Yes, I could have been more clear. Your entry clearly attributes the actual suggestion of M's intent to Dr. Frank Meshberger (JAMA). What I find misleading is using 'Michelanglo's Explanation' in the title when it is not entirely clear that showing the evolution - of either God or the human mind - was his actual intent.

To me, they look like ornately framed views into a God dimension, nothing more. Although some might opine that Michelanglo meant a sly dig at the church saying that the concept of God was a sack full of ... anything. Or that one need only pull God out of his sack when we want or need something.

Certainly, we do not 'know' why the particular shape was chosen (perhaps simply a non-geometric, fluid shape); but, once chosen, we can count on a inventor/engineer/artist to maintain consistency. Anything else is mere mental exercise.

It is more correctly described as a Meshberger explanation of Michelanglo's possible use of a metaphor.

Gee, I hope I didn't actually clear up anything.

Something that does need clearing up is the purpose of PR, which is to deal with factual articles. If this is a speculative treatment of Michelangelo's work and is not a generally accepted explanation then it doesn't belong in PR, period, and should be removed. As far as I can tell the difference between this treatment and the one already in the EG is that of purely speculative material. Therefore, it doesn't belong in the Eg and, by extension, PR.

Perhaps I need more clarification. Does EG refer to Guide Entry?

There is a question about whether the entry: A681680 already covers what has been presented in this entry. That previous entry only deals with the single image of "The Creation of Man", and that link was well described by Meshberger in 1990, but he did not discuss any relationships beyond that image and nor did the prior entry. The additional issue provided by this entry is that Michelangelo used relatively more primitive brain images to portray God in prior phases of creation (leaving for now the equally interesting issue of his use of this brain theme in the Last Judgement). There needs to be some appreciation of the fact that the God images are woven into depictions of primitive brains on Days 1,2,3, and 4. It is clear to me that I need to present this fact more convincingly to those that do not yet see the relationship. That relationship could not possibly be a chance event.

"The additional issue provided by this entry is that Michelangelo used relatively more primitive brain images to portray God in prior phases of creation (leaving for now the equally interesting issue of his use of this brain theme in the Last Judgement). "

In your opinion, that is...

I would like to provide this link to saggital images of a cat brain:

http://www.brainmaps.org/index.php?action=viewslides&datid=23

I think that the comparison to Creation Day-4 is undeniable.

I am working on finding a good view of the frog brain for direct comparison as well with Creation Day-3. But, the knees of God in Creation Day-4 and the buttocks of God in Creation Day-3 are clearly homologous structures and appear to represent the tectum (optic lobe or exactly what the structures are in the frog, I need to learn, but the structures in the cat and human are the colliculi).

It is my opinion that Michelangelo should get the credit for these pictures and their obvious interpretations, not Dr. Meshberger or me. Our gift was the instant of recognition of what has been there for nearly half of a millenium.

Well I have to admit I can't see any resemblance there at all.

I presume that seeing the similarity between Michelangelo's depictions and the corresponding models that he used is difficult. It has been difficult for nearly 500 years, and if the resemblances had been easy to see, he would not have survived a quick inquisition. However, I am trying to make this as perceivable as I can, so, I have prepared 3 new pictures. First view the image of "The Creation of Adam" and a human brain:

http://www.medafile.com/MiaCoda/Cday6s.TIF

Then view "The Creation of the Sun and Moon" and a cat brain:

http://www.medafile.com/MiaCoda/Cday4s.TIF

Notice how clearly God's knees match the tectum of the cat brain.

Also, consider the cat brain sagittal section with a Nissl stain:

http://www.medafile.com/MiaCoda/Cday4b.TIF

I am still looking for a frog brain, which I think will be comparable to the "Creation of Plants".

Thank you for your feedback, this is forcing me to prepare the clearest possible presentation. Is the resemblance beginning to appear?

I have now found a frog brain for comparison. Though the angle is not quite right, it does show the comparability, leading me to think that this may be the brain that Michelangelo used as his model for Day 3. There may be some other considerations that I would be interested to entertain.

http://www.medafile.com/MiaCoda/Cday4b.TIF

I am not quite sure what Day 2 represents, perhaps a fish brain. And Day 1 seems to be a relatively amorphous nervous system - so I definitely need some suggestions for that - perhaps a worm.

Sorry, the frog brain and Creation Day 3 is at:

http://www.medafile.com/MiaCoda/Cday3b.TIF

I have worked on the figure:

http://www.medafile.com/MiaCoda/CdaysBrains.TIF

The representations are Creation Days 1,2,3,4,6

For the full view, see:

http://www.medafile.com/MiaCoda/Cdays.TIF

I think Day 4 looks like a cat brain and Day 3 resembles a frog brain.

I don't have any creative ideas yet for Days 1 and 2.

Well, you've convinced me with the Frog Brain, anyway.

But as Felonius Monk said, the h2g2 Edited Guide is not the place to publish personal theories, no matter how convincing they are. If you have published this theory anywhere, then we can work your contribution into a factual description of a published theory. If not, I'm not sure what we can do with it.

Well, I am glad someone saw the frog brain resemblance.

I don't know whether this is the exact right place for this communicative interaction, but it has certainly helped me to refocus my attention on this issue. And I have appreciated the comments, irritating though some of them have been. But this has helped me to try to make the images as clear as I can.

I have been back through the Creation pictures repeatedly, and I have now made a suggestion for all 5 of the panels:

http://www.medafile.com/MiaCoda/CdaysBrains.TIF

At this point, the actual creation days do not seem to me to line up according to brain development, though the order of appearance on the Sistine Chapel ceiling seems to fit. The "Let there be light" image, at the bottom, seems to me, of all the brains I have examined (including octopus), to be most like the dogfish (a very primitive brain and this is a Mediterranean shark that Michelangelo could have been able to dissect). The Day 2 seems out of order spatially and in relative complexity, and could be the brain of a baboon, which was a primate that was kept around at that time (this was Dr. Harry Jerison's suggestion). The Days 3 and 4 are adjacent and resemble frog and cat brains, and it is reasonable to think Michelangelo had access to dissecting these creatures. The Day 6 human brain has already been discussed. I see no Day 5 image and the subsequent images (like God creating Eve) have shapes that have not revealed their nature to me yet.

So, I have reached a point with this theory and with the suggestions here to begin preparing a new manuscript just focusing on the brain theme in the Creation sequence. From what I understand here, if this story gets published after "scientific peer review", then there is interest in presenting the perspective here in this "peer review".

Thank you again for all of the comments

Keep up the good work. The world needs this sort of research!

The trouble is, is that this subject needs a lot more development before it can even be thought of being suitable for our own PR process. This is more suited to http://www.halfbakery.com as it stands.

The other problem with it is that if one is determined to, one can see patterns wherever one looks. A couple of years ago we had this gentleman posting reams of rubbish to PR: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/ . He has constructed his own alternative reality in which the planet Venus is populated by an advanced civilisation. The way he describes it, it's almost like reading a Richard Scarry book: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/images/guth-venus-180-info.jpg

Now, I'm not saying that your speculations are in the same league of wackiness as this gentleman, but if you want to avoid any controversy it's best to remove contention first by getting reviewed by people who are in a position to judge the merits of your idea, instead around here where ignoramuses like us will probably latch onto any perceived deficiencies in the argument.

I appreciate the last 2 comments. Obviously the issues that are being discussed in Michelangelo's opus involve perceptions and linkings of objects that are rarely viewed. As for some certain scientific community addressing these linkings, there really is a very large gap between comparative neuroanatomists, artists, and creationists. So, there is not really any significant arena to focus attention on such a subject. I chose this forum because there had already been a comment on Meshberger's observation here. For my own scientific community, Geriatric Psychiatry and Alzheimer's Disease, talk of such things is considered a distraction, putting it mildly. There may be a group in the Neuroscience community that would discuss this issue. However, for an initial effort, presenting this to a few individuals that have no experience in this matter, trying to develop the presentation for clear perception has been a worthwhile proving ground.

Just to continue my developing concepts here a little further. After rereading Genesis during a long Christmas sermon, I think the panel showing the separate waters and sky, which I thought represented Day 2, is actually in the order of where Day 5 should be, and that text begins: "And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky..." (Genesis 1:20). So this image showing the water and sky may be in this position correctly. The God image here may be a midline baboon (which I have only seen in an MRI image, but a good match), but I need to check the midsagittal dog brain also. I have asked the Resource for Brain Anatomy center at the University of Wisconsin for help with finding better mid-sagittal pictures. I don't think this will develop further until after the holidays.

Thanks again for your comments.

All that is fair; but, even if the use of brain shapes is absolutely undeniable (I'm making no claims either way), we must remember that dissection of animal and human cadavers has been a popular sport for artists intent on anatomical accuracy.

The shapes MAY, in fact, have been chosen by the artist as suggested. What is not clear is the leap to stating that it represents some personal theory of the artist. All that is still conjecture, and this should be made obvious in both the title and the entry before it is considered.

bookmarks

Just pointing out that the author hasn't posted on h2g2 since 27 Dec 2006. As there is already an Edited Entry on this subject: A681680 The Mystery of Michelangelo's 'Creation of Adam'
I propose move back to Entry


Galaxy Babe
Scout

2nded