Roger Sperry's Nobel Prize (was "impact of telepathy")
John M Price PhD
jmprice at calweb.com
Fri Feb 9 19:22:05 EST 2001
In sci.psychology.theory article <95l696$sgo$1 at nnrp1.deja.com> EL <hemetis at lilac.ocn.ne.jp> wrote:
: In article <3a7c648a_2 at news3.calweb.com>,
: jmprice at calweb.com wrote:
:> In sci.psychology.theory article <Uj3e6.86831
: $ft6.2255212 at typhoon.mw.mediaone.net> Richard Norman
: <rsnorman at mediaone.net> wrote:
:> : "John M Price PhD" <jmprice at calweb.com> wrote in message
:> : news:3a788f2e_1 at news3.calweb.com...
:> :> In sci.psychology.theory article
:> : <LAJd6.83754$ft6.1969570 at typhoon.mw.mediaone.net> Richard Norman
:> : <rsnorman at mediaone.net> wrote:
:> : <snip a lot of irrelevant stuff about telepathy>
:> :>> I remember Roger Sperry (Nobelist for, among other things,
:> :>> split-brain studies) saying that ...
:> :> Nope. The Nobel was for the chemical communication stuff deriving
:> :> his work on the frog visual system.
:> : According to the official web site of the Nobel Foundation
:> : http://www.nobel.se/medicine/laureates/index.html
:> : Roger Sperry won the Nobel Prize in 1981 "for his discoveries
:> : concerning the functional specialization of the cerebral
:> Wow. I should get a refund from a certain high ranking prof for a
:> where he mentioned just this prize, and incorrectly.
:> Or I could be misremembering the seminar.
:> John M. Price, PhD
:> Life: Chemistry, but with feeling!
: Hah. :)
: What "branch" of chemistry did you say that you earned that Ph.D. in?
Psychology, UCDavis, 1994.
: Embarrassment, or was it deep embarrassment?
: Pay attention to the meanings of the words sir.
: Scientists do work on frogs and mice to conclude for humans before
: attempting to verify.
: You are talking about a Nobel Laureate here not one of your students.
So, you have an authoritarian complex, I see.
: How do you think did he arrive at the functional specialization of the
: cerebral hemispheres, if he did not work on every animal he could get
: his hands on?
Actually, he used humans for that research. I am sure, as with Killacky
(sp?) and Chalupa he's also used chimps and Macaque.
: I can imagine him using monkeys as well, ethically intact or not, but
Why imagine? Difficulty reading?
: he must have done more than you can imagine to reach his findings.
Actually, I read his work. It is excellent.
Much better than your desire to imagine, I am sure.
John M. Price, PhD jmprice at calweb.com
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP!
Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
Men's skin is different from women's skin. It is usually bigger, and
it has more snakes tattooed on it. Also, if you examine a woman's skin
very closely, inch by inch, starting at her shapely ankles, then gently
tracing the slender curve of her calves, then moving up to her ...
[EDITOR'S NOTE: To make room for news articles about important
world events such as agriculture, we're going to delete the
next few square feet of the woman's skin. Thank you.]
... until finally the two of you are lying there, spent, smoking your
cigarettes, and suddenly it hits you: Human skin is actually made up of
billions of tiny units of protoplasm, called "cells"! And what is even
more interesting, the ones on the outside are all dying! This is a
fact. Your skin is like an aggressive modern corporation, where the
older veteran cells, who have finally worked their way to the top and
obtained offices with nice views, are constantly being shoved out the
window head first, without so much as a pension plan, by younger
hotshot cells moving up from below.
-- Dave Barry, "Saving Face"
More information about the Neur-sci