Researchers Identify Phantom Limb Brain Activity
mmmscience writes "Researchers in Switzerland think they had identified the regions of the brain responsible for creating phantom limbs and the senses that go along with them. Scientists studied a stroke victim who claimed that the phantom limb of her now-paralyzed left arm could do a number of things a normal limb could do, including 'scratch an itch on her head, with an actual sense of relief.'"
Can you masturbate with a phantom limb?
In Larry Niven's Gil "The Arm" Hamilton stories (collected in Flatlander ), the protagonist lost his arm in an accident, but found that without the physical arm he had developed telekinesis with the remaining phantom hand feeling. This persisted after he got a new arm transplanted, so he had in effect three arms. Now, one can discount Niven's interest in the paranormal, peculiar for a writer usually lauded for the believable science of his stories. But I'd be interested to know if in reality the feeling of a phantom limb would persist even after a new prosthetic or even human transplant were added.
Vacuous lack of information? What's this 'scientists in Switzerland' rubbish? We may not be the biggest country, but it would be polite to say which scientists, even where. For anyone that cares, the study was led by Asaid Khateb, a neuropsychologist at Geneva University Hospitals. Published in the Annals of Nuerology, abstract here: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122269076/abstract
It's been long suspected in sports training that mentally practicing a skill is often as useful and productive as doing the real thing. fMRI supports this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_Practice_of_Action The surprising thing to me is that she actually got relief from phantom-ly scratching herself. I suspect this is some placebo effect. Or related to why you can't tickle yourself.
Now that they've found it, I'd like to see if they could - though I understand such specific manipulation is no doubt a long way off - work on a way to stimulate the area artificially. The ability to build controllable phantom limbs could be of great use for interacting with virtual realities. Imagine, while still having full control of your senses and limbs, being able to walk around a second entirely separate world with an entirely separate body; a lucid, computer-assisted daydream, essentially.
Do male to female transexuals get phantom erections after the operation?
Watch this guy explain it and be amazed. The phantom Limb part comes in at around half way if I remember correctly. This was filmed in 2007 so ya old news. Vilayanur Ramachandran: A journey to the center of your mind http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/184
consider this new yorker piece:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/06/30/080630fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all
basically, this poor woman's condition has bolstered neurologists rethinking of the itch sensation as something completely unrelated to pain. she had an incredibly rare "phantom itch". how disabling was it? she scratched THROUGH HER SKULL, until she was scratching brain matter
she survived, in a debilitated condition, but she did better than her roommate, who, with a similar phantom itch, scratched through to his carotid, and killed himself
read, for an especially horrifying insight into what its like to live with a phantom itch:
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
So, aside from your word, which is nothing short of one big "Citation Needed", I'm going to see "1 (one) million dollars, verified in a bank account, just waiting to be had", along with a sensible set of rules that should be absolutely no problem at all for anyone having a talent of this kind, and conclude that you are either scorned because you failed it, or just incapable of understanding others might be a tad cynical of those who come with extraordinary claims.
And this is exactly how I felt about things as well until I went to explore the claims and counter-claims surrounding Randi.
Clearly, you have not done this. Why?
--That's a rhetorical "Why?" which I answered in my previous post. Citations are useful and they are out certainly available, but you are not asking for one; you are challenging with a chin-jutting attitude. What does this say about what you really want?
What do I 'win' by convincing you, other than perhaps your respect and that of society's in general? The thing is, I no longer crave society's respect (and certainly not yours) due to the work I have done in re-writing the programming in my own mind. --The combative "Jury Box" system of truth discernment is a feature of our world which has been sold to us through television with the broad suggestion that it can and should be applied in all instances including the scientific forum, but this is not the case. Here's an interesting fact: Many of the forces which exist beyond the walls of 'official culture' have to do with one's state of consciousness, and can be affected and indeed blocked through an application of intent and strong will. If you don't want to see something, then in a surprising number of cases, it is entirely possible to trick yourself into not seeing it. You can even prevent others from seeing. There are a vast number of phenomenon like this.
As for the win/lose method of knowledge distribution. . .
I've already 'won' by increasing my knowledge. Yow win nothing by fortifying ignorance. But we are taught that "Winning = Not Getting the Ego Bruised". "Being Wrong" has been attached with a powerful negative emotional cost hammered into us all through an education system which pitted children against one another through the tactic of age segregation. Age segregation makes it so that leaders are not readily found within groups, thus increasing the competition among children to very high levels while never allowing for a clear 'winner'. One result is that of, "Jocks v.s. Geeks". --The result being a shell-shocked geek community which grows into adulthood with deeply set baggage wrt losing face in any kind of contest. Thus the attaining of knowledge comes in at a distant second to being Right At All Cost. (And when I say, "Right" I do not mean, "Factually Correct". I mean "In line with the official version".) --The age segregation and the combat it forces children to undergo makes knowledge given by authority figures (like the TV) the only safe way of accumulating data because the data given is not accompanied by a sense of guilt or defeat in not previously knowing, but rather a warm-fuzzy feeling. So if you can control the media, and you also control the knowledge stream because the population will police itself, allowing no new knowledge to arise from its peers. The only thing geeks are allowed to say is simply a repetition of what TV's and various other globally recognized media authority figures have stated as being 'true'.
-FL