Thread: Scientist Suggests Human Gene Can Sense Magnetic Field

Originally Posted by tommo

On the other hand, you don't notice your liver metabolising chemicals.

And in some circumstances, humans can become consciously aware of those things. Humans are able to detect the action of a single neuron, this has been clinically verified.

We'd notice it if we had it.

You sure about that? Did you know that human sensitivity to sound frequencies exceeds that of other mammals? Neurobiology is still a relatively newer science and discoveries are being made all the time. It seems silly to me for anyone to assume "we'd notice it if we had it", and to discount such possibilities. I might be wrong, but I don't think that's how new discoveries are made (I realize the majority of them are accidental but it's still better to be more open minded imho).

the ability of such neurons to detect the slightest of differences in sound frequency far surpasses that of the human auditory nerve, which carries information from the hair cells of the inner ear to the brain's auditory cortex - by as much as 30 times greater sensitivity. Indeed, such frequency tuning in the human auditory cortex is substantially superior to that typically found in the cortex of nonhuman mammals, with the exception of bats.

A single auditory neuron from humans showed an amazing ability to distinguish between very subtle frequency differences, down to a tenth of an octave. This, compared to a sensitivity of about one octave in the cat, about a third of an octave in rats and a half to a full octave in the macaque.

"This is remarkable selectivity," said Fried, who is also co-director of UCLA's Seizure Disorder Center. "It is indeed a mystery why such resolution in humans came to be. Why did we develop this? Such selectivity is not needed for speech comprehension...This study, Fried noted, is the latest example of the power of neurobiological research that uses data drawn directly from inside a living human brain at the single-neuron level. Previous studies from Fried's lab have identified single cells in the human hippocampus specific to place in human navigation, and single cells that can translate varied visual images of the same item - such as the identity of an individual - into a single concept that is instantly and consistently recognizable.

I realize we're talking about something entirely different, this is merely offered as an example.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Even though I see what you're saying, you are kind of missing my point. Just like people in different regions develop different skin tones and people in different conditions develop different musculoskeletal structures, etc; how do we (you and I, in our modernized generation/environment) begin to say that just because we don't "sense" this possibly-dormant trait, that humans can't? That wouldn't be necessarily true assumption. You know a previously-unconacted tribe has just been discoverred, a few days ago? I wonder how much more or less developed their survival senses (even the ones we are aware of; smell, sight, etc) are than ours. If they can fluctuate, due to what's necessary to survive in your environment, then our inability to sense it does not mean it's not a human ability.

This all makes sense as a separate issue, it's just that I never said otherwise, and you initially brought it up as if I had.

Naturally it's possible that some of the tiny number of nomads still left in the world (for example) have this sense, and it's also possible that other people have the ability genetically but never developed it as they grew. All speculative, though.

Originally Posted by Pan

You sure about that? Did you know that human sensitivity to sound frequencies exceeds that of other mammals? Neurobiology is still a relatively newer science and discoveries are being made all the time. It seems silly to me for anyone to assume "we'd notice it if we had it", and to discount such possibilities. I might be wrong, but I don't think that's how new discoveries are made (I realize the majority of them are accidental but it's still better to be more open minded imho).

Thanks again but if you leave the quote in context then that's not what it's about, see the response to O... or read the original post to tommo diligently.

And in some circumstances, humans can become consciously aware of those things. Humans are able to detect the action of a single neuron, this has been clinically verified.

I'm not entirely sure what this means concretely, can you link to whatever it is? Clearly humans can't detect the specific firing of every neuron in their heads, and it's well known that for various senses a neuron is enough for it to be tangible.

Originally Posted by Xei

This all makes sense as a separate issue, it's just that I never said otherwise, and you initially brought it up as if I had.

No, you never said otherwise. You just implied it, heavily.

Never. I had no doubt you thought I'd be 'closed minded' about this and you leapt on the first statement that seemed to imply I was, when in context it was about something totally separate. I am totally open to the idea that prehistoric humans had this sense, that some extant humans could still use it, and that others have the genetic potential. Why not? Many animals can do this. It's just that there's currently no conclusive evidence about it. Despite what I perceive as a common suppositious undercurrent, I am the antithesis of closed mindedness, and you won't find anything in my posts saying, or heavily implying, otherwise.

Originally Posted by Xei

Never. I had no doubt you thought I'd be 'closed minded' about this and you leapt on the first statement that seemed to imply I was, when in context it was about something totally separate. I am totally open to the idea that prehistoric humans had this sense, that some extant humans could still use it, and that others have the genetic potential. Why not? Many animals can do this. It's just that there's currently no conclusive evidence about it. Despite what I perceive as a common suppositious undercurrent, I am the antithesis of closed mindedness, and you won't find anything in my posts saying, or heavily implying, otherwise.

Well then I guess you and I can disagree on that. Granted, I believe you were rather careful not to take the 'closed-minded' approach. And (despite your assumption) I had no preconceived notions on what you were going to say, before you started posting. It is in phrases like:

Originally Posted by Xei

"Magnetic sense is about being able to sense the direction. We'd notice it if we had it"

...as well as entire posts like:

Originally Posted by Xei

"Thanks but that's not really relevant to what I was saying; if you leave the quote in context it makes sense. I was just responding to the idea that we wouldn't notice it because we're never exposed to any changes; we are, and so if we had the ability to sense variations, we would. I'm not sure to what extent you can say somebody has a 'sense' when they aren't conscious of sensing anything, but hey, that's a semantic issue. If we wanted to be clear, you're talking about a 'physiologically potential sense'. That's what's up for debate."

..and:

Originally Posted by Xei

If we do have a magnetic sense, it's so rudimentary that it can't demonstrably detect the Earth's magnetic field. The magnetic field of a human brain is about 10,000,000 times weaker. Being able to detect that would be like having hearing so poor that you can't make out what song a band is playing at a concert, but you can hear what two people in the crowd are whispering about fifty feet away...

...which brought me to say that you heavily implied it (and - if I may be so bold - I don't think I'm alone in that sentiment).

Being that not a single point in the OP (nor the article) stated that any of the findings were conclusive, I find your stating that they are inconclusive is either A) just a bit redundant, which is fine, or B) an attempt to down-play the point being made (that, though not conclusive, it could be a significant area of study.)

So you can say that I'm just pouncing on you because of my (alleged) preconceived notions about how you would feel on the subject, but I think that, truthfully, it's a bit obvious that I was going more off of what you said...not what you thought I'd think you would say.

With all that being said, though, I'm glad that you think of it the way that you do.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Well sure it is, this far down the line. Most things are. Those different skin tones began as the body's reaction to climate/sunlight, though. Remember, mankind originated from the same region. (Africa) It was in their moving to different locales that the changes in pigmentation began happening. It's more or less the same thing. Though I do agree that the musculoskeletal system is a better analogy.

The exodus from africa happened at least 40,000 years ago though. That's long enough for as trivial a change as melatonin variation to stabilize. "Civilization" has only been going on for the past 10,000 years that we know of. And that's with a very small percentage of the human population. I would expect that any selective pressure against the hypothesised ability has only arisen over the course of the past 500 years [i]averaged out[i] over the species. That's about 25 generations. And it's a very very light selective pressure at that.

I stand by my statement. Skin tone is a terrible analogy and musculoskeletal condition is a good one. You're shooting 1 out of 2. That ain't bad.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I stand by my statement. Skin tone is a terrible analogy and musculoskeletal condition is a good one. You're shooting 1 out of 2. That ain't bad.

As I said, I was talking about the initial change in pigment. Not the primarily genetic difference as it is now...

...but yeah. I'll take that 1 out of 2.

Well O, I think that you developed an impression of my heavily implying convictions which I... don't actually have... is the point. None of those quotes, when read conscientiously in context, are actually about what you took from them. I mean, even picking up cues from formal pronouns..? Anyway, I don't want this to get silly, it was just a general impression I was getting from some people; if it's not actually your belief that I'm a cynical zealot rather than just cautious, then awesome.

Originally Posted by Xei

None of those quotes, when read conscientiously in context, are actually about what you took from them.

Then I apologize for misinterpreting. However, like I said, I don't think I went too far out on a limb to do so. Though I will take you at your word.

Originally Posted by Xei

I mean, even picking up cues from formal pronouns..?

Well, yeah. If by that you mean your use of "we," then I could only assume that by "we" you meant "humans." That is how you used the word, multiple times. I don't really see how I could be expected to interpret that in any other way, to be completely honest. But, again, we can move on.

Originally Posted by Xei

Anyway, I don't want this to get silly, it was just a general impression I was getting from some people; if it's not actually your belief that I'm a cynical zealot rather than just cautious, then awesome.

I believe you walk the line, sometimes.
But it's because you walk the line that I try not to jump to too many conclusions - especially when it's dealing with plausible subjects, such as this. When it comes to the more controversial (like 2012, etc), I'm more inclined to believe that you'll come into the discussion with full riot gear on and guns blazing, rather than being diplomatic and genuinely open-minded. And I don't mean that as an insult, so I hope you don't take it that way. It's just the impression that I get.

"Look, I've always been more curious than cautious, and that's served me pretty well."

^I know O will get that one.

Originally Posted by Pan

"Look, I've always been more curious than cautious, and that's served me pretty well."

^I know O will get that one.

Haha. Absolutely. The Incredible Hulk.

This is pretty interesting, but I think mostly because it may show that we (humans) had the ability at some point. It is my feeling that if we did have this ability, we should be able to utilize it on some level, and so it should be possible to device a test which would so that it's there. I'm lead to believe that such studies have been carried out.

Of course O might be right in thinking that there might be differences between certain groups of people that arise either from genetic differences or because the ability only develops if certain stimulus if provided at critical times, or even because you have to be trained to use it. With the later two possibilities, however, this should still indicate a higher than chance occurrence of detecting the correct direction in a sufficiently large study of a given group of people.