IUBio

Brain Use/40 hertz

F. Frank LeFever flefever at ix.netcom.com
Tue Jan 12 22:50:08 EST 1999


The short answer: I studied neuropsychology initially under Hans-Lukas
Teuber (at NYU, before he moved to MIT), subsequently studied
neuroanatomy under a man whose dissertation adviser had been James
Papez.  I studied brain function and behavior in rats many years before
working with humans.  I have been working with brain injured humans for
over 20 years.  Last fall, was invited speaker at a brain injury
association meeting in Virginia.  My activities with organizations such
as the International Neuropsychological Society for the past 20 years
and the Society for Neuroscience (c. 5 years?), Brain Injury
Association of NY, NY Academy of Sciences, etc., etc. has allowed me to
become well-accquainted with numerous people who have made significant
contributions to neuroscience generally and brain injury in particular;
and hours reading the scientific/medical literature related to brain
function (every week), gives me some depth.

Accordingly, I do not hesitate to say that Mr. Sargent's "5 minutes" of
dredging the dregs of the web (he seems PROUD of the short time he
spent!) turned up a lot of undigested nonsense.

Regarding jokes: Mr. Sargent still doesn't get it.  My saying "must be
a different Alexander Luria" is a standard form of sarcasm.  There is
no other Alexander Luria.  (n.b. Teuber and Luria were among the
founding editors of Neuropsychologia) Don't you think in all these
years I would have heard someone (e.g. 2-3 people I know personnaly who
WORKED with Luria) comment oon the oddity of a neurosurgeon with the
same name doing such atrocious human experiments?

F. Frank LeFever, Ph.D
New York Neuropsychology Group





In <369B68B0.8A996EB1 at ix.netcom.com> Richard Sargent
<dsargent at ix.netcom.com> writes: 
>
>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