Roger Sperry's Nobel Prize (was "impact of telepathy")
hemetis at lilac.ocn.ne.jp
Fri Feb 9 21:32:10 EST 2001
In article <3a8489ad_2 at news3.calweb.com>,
"John M Price PhD" jmprice at calweb.com wrote:
> :> --
> :> John M. Price, PhD
> :> Life: Chemistry, but with feeling!
> : --
> : [EL]
> : Hah. :)
> : What "branch" of chemistry did you say that you earned that Ph.D.
> Psychology, UCDavis, 1994.
So what was that "Chemistry, but with feeling!", a disguise? ;)
Philosophy doctorates in psychology are welcome when they are what they
are, not when they pretend what they are not.
> : 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
> So, you have an authoritarian complex, I see.
Not even a flying monkey's fart. As I do question some of Einstein's
work such as the time and twin paradox.
Yet, we should realize that Nobel Laureates are normal people who have
worked much more than average people and we should not underestimate
their work, but then you seem to have changed your stance after the
embarrassment so it is ok. :)
We all make mistakes, but I got identified due to my high credentials
in Chemistry, and I hate to see a close colleague getting embarrassed
while I can hardly defend him/her. That is why your "Chemistry, but
with feeling!", moved me to respond to you.
> : How do you think did he arrive at the functional specialization of
> : cerebral hemispheres, if he did not work on every animal he could
> : his hands on?
> Actually, he used humans for that research. I am sure, as with
> (sp?) and Chalupa he's also used chimps and Macaque.
> : I can imagine him using monkeys as well, ethically intact or not,
> Why imagine? Difficulty reading?
Yes imagine, why do I have to pretend to have read his work while I did
Also why should I have a difficulty reading his work after gaining the
Ph. D. degree Seven consecutive times in fields related to biochemistry
including neurological studies? Shame on you to use such a provocative
language professor "Psychology". :(
You might argue that it was me who started the provocation, but then,
humans could do much more than worms when they react in a reflexive
manner. I encounter frauds everyday on the news groups and I just
wanted to know if you are one of those in my kill-file or if you should
be added to it.
> : he must have done more than you can imagine to reach his findings.
> Actually, I read his work. It is excellent.
If you have read his work and think that it is excellent, why did you
not follow up on his Nobel prize to see the title of his work before
your hasty post, which embarrassed you so much? Or am I mixing on who
said what here? We can check back the posts and see that you missed it
on his work related to the cerebral hemispheres.
Your own words:
"Nope. The Nobel was for the chemical communication stuff deriving from
his work on the frog visual system."
But Richard Norman replied you and said:
"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 hemispheres"
Is there any possibility that the position is switched here?
Or am I absolutely correct on following the events and who said what?
> Much better than your desire to imagine, I am sure.
Until I read his work I shall never pretend to have read it, but also
there shall never exist who can impose on my freedom of imagination.
Do you understand, or do you need some extra emotional expressions to
aid you on focusing your psychological and mental powers, and realizing
who the other side to whom you are addressing your rude comments.
If you are interested we can return to the objective discussion and
drop the egotistic retaliations.
The work of Roger Sperry, as I can guess from the title, was introduced
as an evidence that even between the two cerebral hemispheres there
exists no telepathic communications. Thus, one does not even need to
test such an allegation between twins or genetically related subjects
because in such cases we would be working with statistical data of hit
and miss results rather than empirical science.
If communication between the two hemispheres is proven to be chemical
in nature and that surgical separation of the two hemispheres induces
characteristics that can only be explained as the absence of
communication between the two hemispheres, then we can drop the case of
telepathy, unless someone claims that the telepathic communication
center is only in one of the two hemispheres or that it is in the
middle where the surgeon applied his tools.
So what does the psychology professor say?
"AS SOON AS AN ASSHOLE is rong they start insulting people." -- tj
Sent via Deja.com
More information about the Neur-sci