<article_title>Brain</article_title>
<edit_user>Tryptofish</edit_user>
<edit_time>Wednesday, September 23, 2009 5:41:47 PM CEST</edit_time>
<edit_comment>/* Development */ source (also delete excess spaces)</edit_comment>
<edit_text>Similar things happen in other brain areas: an initial synaptic matrix is generated as a result of genetically determined chemical guidance, but then gradually refined by activity-dependent mechanisms, partly driven by internal dynamics, partly by external sensory inputs. In some cases, as with the retina-midbrain system, activity patterns depend on mechanisms that operate only in the developing brain, and apparently exist solely for the purpose of guiding development.<strong>&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[#refWong|Wong, 1999]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;</strong></edit_text>
<turn_user>Tryptofish<turn_user>
<turn_time>Wednesday, September 23, 2009 7:17:56 PM CEST</turn_time>
<turn_topicname>Brain in a vat</turn_topicname>
<turn_topictext>For fear of edit warring, I want to explain here why I disagree with another editor about putting a cartoon of the Brain in a vat hypothesis here. First, the image is really cartoonish and the figure legend is amateurish in that it has spelling mistakes (which of course could be corrected if there were no other issues). More substantively, the scenario depicted is purely hypothetical (and, if taken literally, physiologically impossible, although I realize that it is not intended to be taken literally). Looking at the main page from which it is taken, it does not strike me as notable enough to be included in a general article about the brain, at least not as a figure without explanation in the text. Putting it here seems to me to go against WP:UNDUE. I probably would not object to a sourced sentence of text within the section, but the figure seems inappropriate to me. What do other editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC) I don't have terribly strong feelings but I sort of like it, actually, and it's certainly a concept that has been widely discussed. The figure legend would of course have to be fixed, but that's no problem. What I like is that it makes a key point about the relationship between brain and mind come through very vividly. What would you think about asking for an "independent opinion" from the GA reviewer, or perhaps at the WikiProject Neuroscience talk page? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Woops, now I have to take back what I just said on your talk page (just kidding!). Yes, more opinions would be the way to go. That's why I started this thread, after all. But might it be better, instead, to just put a sentence into the text, blue-linked to the main page on the topic? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)</turn_topictext>
<turn_text>Woops, now I have to take back what I just said on your talk page (just kidding!). Yes, more opinions would be the way to go. That's why I started this thread, after all. But might it be better, instead, to just put a sentence into the text, blue-linked to the main page on the topic? </turn_text>