Are brains necessary?

Silvano D'Orazio silvano at
Fri Apr 11 01:25:15 EST 1997

On 07 Apr 1997 11:41:50 -0400, Bill Skaggs <skaggs at>

>drgg4 at (DrGG4) writes:
>> Regarding cognitive deficits that can only be detected with very sensitive
>> and sophisticated neurological tests - how significant can such deficits
>> be?
>> Bill Skaggs is wrong in calling this a myth. Check out that video - it
>> will astound you. Some will argue that the data presented there are not
>> data, but anecdotes. See for your self.
>> Gary Greenberg
>For something as crucial as this I would not accept the evidence of a
>video, however astounding.  I would either need to see it for myself,
>or else see a carefully presented case study in a reviewed journal.
>As far as I can tell there is no such thing.  I would also not be very
>happy if the only evidence of pathology was based on CAT scans,
>because hydrocephaly is likely to change the fluid balance in the
>brain and thereby give rise to difficulties in interpretation (though
>I make no claim to be an expert on this topic).  An MRI would be
>better, I think, but the most convincing thing would be a case that
>came to autopsy.  Still, nobody has yet pointed me to a published case
>study that is even based on CAT scans.
>	-- Bill Skaggs
There is other evidence than this video, which I did not see.
Measurments of reaction times of masters in martial arts show that the
brain would be far to slow to calculate a response and to proceed it.
At least there must be supplementary centres independent from the
brain which provide fast information processing in the humen
physiological system.

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list