IUBio

Brain Use/40 hertz

Richard Sargent dsargent at ix.netcom.com
Tue Jan 12 10:22:24 EST 1999


Referenced immediately below is the name of the most egotistical,
pathological liar I've met in years

F. Frank LeFever wrote:

>     A lot of nonsense with a lot of assurance.  Possibly a new
>    kkollins?

Franks' continual obstreporous posts seem mostly innocuous [don't need to
fear that a POINT will ever be made)

>     SOME "nearly correct" points...

wrong again, Frank.  Also, If you are going to criticize what I've written,
use all the text I've compiled (sometimes I refer to a prior point (that
you left out in this thread))

>     ad hoc comments follow...



>
>
> >
> >DK wrote:
> >
> >> >> Here, I thought of an analogy: right now I am using 50% of my
>
> - - - - - - - - - - -(snip) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> >> >Try typing while dancing a jig... tough row to hoe.
>
> >- - - - - - -(snip) - - - - - - - - -
>
> >The human mind can learn to such expertise combinations of activities
> that your
> >observations do not seem logical.  (prior comment) -- Humans cannot
> demonstrate
> >superhuman ability, obviously, by doing with proficiciency activities
> which
> >require Total body coordination ( as dancing) and one which  requires
> hand-eye
> >coordination  during performance of which a sedentary (sitting)
> position is
> >preferred.
> >



>     An obvious distinction to be made: stage of development of a
>    skilled activity. When overlearned to the point of automaticity,
>     attention can be given to other activities concurrently.

Frank you left out my first comment which would provide more meaning to the
above cited paragraph.  It was:

That's because the two actions are so dissimilar as to not even belong in
the
same context.


>     Do not a priori assume what activities interfere with each other.

We all are behooved to let common sense direct our newsgroup discussion.

>     Bear in mind Marcel Kinsbourne's paradigm of right vs. left hand
>     dowel balancing and verbal performance.

Please enlighten us

> >The human brain is only 10% functional, at best.The first to outline
> this
> >theory, later proved a fact by others,

>         Hardly a theory; hardly a fact.

Frank, you don't seem to be able to read through before you make comments
that would answer your questions.  Incidentally, those 3 snippets came from
a web search, not from my own psyche.  It took me 5 minutes.  Obviously, if
one really wants to find something out, the information age has dawned!,
and he can gratify that thirst for knowledge and read about others'
experiments about similar areas.

>
>
>  was Australian Neurology Nobel
> Laureate
> >Sir John
> >Eccles. (Lecture: University of Colorado, University Memorial Center
> Boulder,
> >July 31, 1974.) "The brain indicates
> >its powers are endless."
>
>         Eccles did important work on spinal reflexes.  Lecture may
>         represent his thinking in his dotage, when he may have become a
>         dualist and a spiritist... (MAY have; not familiar with it)

Must you, Frank, resort to 'smearing' legitimate references in a vain
effort to discredit the post I made?

> >In England, John Lorber did autopsies on hydrocephalics. This illness
> causes
> >all but the 1/6th inch layer of brain tissue
> >to be dissolved by acidic spinal fluid.
>
>             "dissolved by acidic spinal fluid" ?!?! Please tell me you
>             know this to be a joke!

No, Frank, not a joke, the results of a 5 minute web search.  Do I have
time to ascertain the validity of all findings?  Should I care to?  No, but
if you include multiple refs (I included 3), the truth will usually be
manifested.

>  He tested the IQ's of patients before
> >and during the disease. His findings showed
> >that IQ remained constant up to death.
>
>         Constant at what level? I have seen a few cases...

That's for you to find out Frank, unless you think that your learning
'tenure' is complete and you need do no more research.  How disparaging you
are about real historical men who conducted honest studies.

>         Also, the "IQ" does not tell the whole story (and some IQ tests
>         tell less than others).

You forgot those three all important letters, IMO (in my opinion).  I guess
you think you have 3 more important letters (PhD).  Well, discrediting ALL
valid references used militates against the search for truth (Or should I
say scientific fact, Frank, in case you're inclined to religious
hysteria?)  and against the scientific method.

>  Although over 90% of brain tissue was
> >destroyed by the disease, it had no
> >impact on what we consider to be normal intelligence.
>
> >Russian neurosurgeon Alexandre Luria
>
>             Any relation to the Russian neuropsychologist of the same
>             name?  A.R. Luria??  I am on a first-name basis with THAT
>             Luria's last doctoral student...

Well, obviously, its not the same one.  Your egotism and high-mindedness
have spurred you to speak out of turn once more, eh Frank?

>  proved that the 1/3 bulk of frontal lobes
> >are mostly dormant.



>            Must be a different Alexander Luria.

>  The one I know is
>             famous for demonstrating the complex and devastating
>             effects of frontal lobe injury.

Two words:        Proof read

> He did this byperforming ablation (surgical removal)
> >experiments on persons. He gave physiological and psychological tests
> before,
> >cut out parts and
> >whole frontal lboes, the re-tested after.
>



>  His conclusion: removal of part or
> >all of frontal lobes causes no major change
> >in brain function, (some change in mood alteration). The frontal lobes
> are
> >mostly dormant, asleep.
>
>             And of course, in the light of MANY, MANY subsequent
>             observations of patients with frontal lobe injuries, some
>             by people nearly as famous as Luria,

How would you know, Frank?  You've repeatedly demonstrated ignorance with
your lack of knowledge about those examples, or paradigms, if your tongue
is inclined to highfalutin.

> some relatively unkown
>             (e.g. me),

One thing we definitely can conclude --you, Frank, are not a valid source,
scorning sincere researchers, mocking legitimate test procedures, and
generally showing little respect for the scientific method.

> and in the light of animal experiments, this is
>             such utter nonsense that you do indeed qualify as the next
>             kkollins!

Ahh, pathetic  .. truly a science experiment gone bad.  You end this
foolish reply of yours Frank, with insults to a person who hasn't even
spoken in this whole time!

>   The extent of the information you can access on the Web
> >approaches absurdity, and certainly will constitute 'enough'
> information for an
> >informed conclusion to be postulated.
> >

Frank, you have demonstrated yourself to be a maladjusted individual with a
repulsive personality.  Please discontinue your meaningless chatter.

> >My name is Peter, not Richard, as the Sender name may misinform you.
> >
> >Peter Sargent
> >
>
>         Well, let us at least hope he knows what he is talking about
>         when he tells us his name.

Leave my father out of this, you disgusting person!  All he has done is own
the computer, hence the difference in Sender name.  He doesn't have time
for this kind of talk.  I'm sorry you do.  You must be an incredible loser,
Frank.

I am simply a neuroscience dilletante because psychology and the chemical
mechanism that drives it is very interesting to me as well as an extreme
appeal to new computer technology.

Peter L. Sargent





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net