Interesting discovery of the number of neurons and the thoughts per gallon (500 calories a day) . If the number of neurons determines cognitive abilities a bird brained macaw is more intelligent so is a dolphin( pilot whale) so back yo the drawing board. The food and cooking theory misses the mark in my opinion. I would focus more on the consciousness of the mind.

"Let’s clarify a few things. Some ask about comparing the total number of neurons between various species. Rather than the total number, it’s the regional distributions of neurons that matters. For example, the author of this talk found that elephants have three times more neurons than humans (2014). But the elephant neocortex, the region for cognitive abilities, had 8 times fewer neurons than in humans. So far so good, but that’s until we examine dolphins and even parrots.

A 2014 study showed that dolphins (pilot whales) have 37.2 billion neurons in the neocortex, twice as many as in humans. Our idea of intelligence is further challenged with parrots, such as the macaw. About a month ago a study showed that macaws have more cortical neurons than many primates, such as the rhesus monkey.

As a neuroscientist, I think the quest for IQ needs to be resolved within our own species first. If we compared Einstein’s brain to the average brain, it’s unlikely that we would discover a much larger number of cortical neurons. It’s more likely that intelligence stems from the way that neurons are connected to each other and which specific areas of the cortex are more developed.

I admire Suzana’s work because not only did she rigorously demonstrate the number of neurons in the human brain, but also proved that the number of glia is not three times more than the number of neurons (it’s ~50:50). Many scientists and even textbooks still use the old information and are teaching it to students.

By way, I agree with posters who point out the lack of evidence that cooking is the reason for our large brains. I don’t know a lot about nutrition, but this hypothesis has already been tested by the large number of people on raw food diets. I’m pretty sure they don’t have to eat more than 9 hours a day to survive. Farming might come into play here… Nevertheless, the cooking hypothesis was not what the author tested and it does not take away from her ingenious work with neurons".
From the comment section Beck Khekoyan.

Thanks for sharing. That was pretty fascinating.

I think there are a couple of leaps in there that aren't particularly well-founded however. The first is that just because you create brain soup to measure the sheer number of neurons doesn't measure overall cognitive ability. Many animals devote significant neural capacity to sensory organs (especially olfactory and auditory) which in comparison outclass human abilities (sharks and dogs come to mind). Thus I think that a far better comparison would be to build upon the work she has done but to individually divide the brains for comparison into functional areas prior to liquefaction and comparison.

I also echo the comments regarding simply cooking one's food, and would instead prefer a far more rigorous dietary examination. A cow has five stomachs to aid in the digestion of plant materials and is far more efficient at such tasks than humans, where that fiber simply passes through us. Primates are not vegetarian with specialized stomachs, so a diet heavy in plant fibers is going to be necessarily inefficient. Take koalas for example, who spend nearly their entire days eating eucalyptus leaves. A primate that subsists primarily upon proteins, however - especially animal proteins - can be much more efficient.

I applaud her for her initial work, but suggest that she draws several conclusions which we will find do not follow from the abundant evidence.

TED talks do not usually present coherent explanations of complex science. She is way off base in the causal process of cranial size and body mass. No species has more neurons than they need to do the work of living. Humans stood up learned to pick through the Savannah for food in odd shapes and other wise led more complex lives than fellow primates. You cant cook food until after you catch it and prepare it. SO the cooking is not a clue to brain size. So why did we stand up because we had to move horizontally for food while our primate cousins stayed in the jungle climbing trees for food. We do more complex motions to get food and stay alive than any other species. When we learned to talk after being human for 250,000 years we could try to explain what we could do. We do more work and that is why we have the brains we do. They let us cook so we could do less work per amount of food. The kinds and types of neurons depend on the work which makes food available not the other way around. See Leiberman on the reason humans stood up. Out in the Savannah the food is horizontally distributed. not vertically like in the jungle. .

this explains why we have so many cooking shows on TV.
However, we have an enormous growing population of obese people, is that so they can get smarter by consuming more food?

Interesting find, freedom, Thanks...of course the other thing that happened to us...isssssss....Consciousness!!! [ding ding ding], awareness of our own awareness, self introspection and all of that, is not located in those neurons and doesn't cost anything...unless your one the 60% that can only go with what those neurons crave...which most times, isn't pretty, moral and usually causes us trouble somewhere down the road.

Just watch the news...you'll know to whom we speak.

Laughing...psssst...we're not primates either, but don't tell anyone...
(our makers must curse the day they used that clay)

Fascinating. Thanks!

An enjoyable but somewhat misleading speech. Not all neurons are structured the same in all species. Just as important is the number of dendrites (neurotransmitter connections), which I believe are more dense in higher species. Also, the human brain has specialized cells that act to "rewire" those connections to effectively reprogram memories and actions. The complete explanation of why we think seemingly more effectively than other species has yet to be determined.

Another recently discovered error in the thinking about the brain is the idea that all brains are mapped the same way. Corvids (crow and raven family) carry out reasoning processes in a much more efficient manner than humans, given the size of their brains and number of neurons, so that presents another conundrum to be resolved.

Recently, some neurologists have determined that there may be extra-material elements to human consciousness, in the form of a low energy electromagnetic field that allows communication among brain components more rapidly than theoretically possible given the limitations of a 250 mph chemical reaction-driven neurological network. Some have misinterpreted this to mean they may have discovered a human "aura" or even the soul, but the energy level of this field makes it very difficult to detect outside of the human skull. It may even briefly survive the brain death point, but is highly unlikely to represent a non-corporeal element that can survive beyond the end of a physical body's existence.

Wouldn't it be great if we could control the energy distribution? I could do some very intense intellectualizing while losing my love handles.

The human brain is more complex than the fanciest computer humans can design, let alone build. How anyone imagines that one can achieve artificial reason--a machine that can think the way you and I think--is beyond my comprehension.

But does anyone here have any idea of the origin of the conscious mind?

Presumably the soup is not intended for human consumption. Once upon a time people believed that if you ate the brains of your enemy, you would acquire his powers.

I suggest that it is not necessarily the number of neurons or the weight of their communal mass, but what is fed into them from experience and acquired rules of existence. The neurons are just the hardware. Let's put on the detective's cap and explore the mystery of the software.

A self driving car only has to be better than one driven by a typical human to be an improvement. Same with a kiosk st fast food restaurants. It was shown in the movie SULLY that the control system in the airbus could have safely landed at an airport instead of the Hudson River if it was allowed to be in control after dual engine failure

I have no idea where this came from but I process and remember things as pictures. If I am looking for something I find it by searching through the pictures stored in my head somewhere. It’s kind of like rolling back through videotape.

Fascinating topic, thanks for the post.
The cooking and brain-cost connection is important but it doesn't explain the driving force in evolution. The driver must be an advantage to the larger brain, and that cannot be simply survival (hunting etc) otherwise it would be more common in other animals. My studies lead me to conclude that the driver is our storytelling ability. That is the uniquely human brain function which has been exaggerated over time due to mate selection. Storytelling has nothing to do with survival, and most traits which are not survival-based tend to become over-developed (eg. bright bird plumage)

So, 16billion neurons in the cortex using 500kCal/day (~25Watts). What does that translate to in terms of RAM, bus speed, and data throughput?

I like to point out, to anyone who feels some aspect of their physical self makes them different or inferior:
Despite our physical differences, our brain is the only thing that really differentiates us. And brains are all the same color.