Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site ctvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ctvax!jmiller
From: jmiller@ctvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.ai
Subject: Re: Objection to Crane: A Quick Question - (nf)
Message-ID: <45200003@ctvax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 2-Jul-84 12:11:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ctvax.45200003
Posted: Mon Jul  2 12:11:00 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Jul-84 00:21:06 EDT
References: <1138@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Lines: 18
Nf-ID: #R:sri-arpa:-113800:ctvax:45200003:000:853
Nf-From: ctvax!jmiller    Jul  2 11:11:00 1984

#R:sri-arpa:-113800:ctvax:45200003:000:853
ctvax!jmiller    Jul  2 11:11:00 1984

As noted by others, we're talking about experiments by Penfield here.
Pretty much any intro psychology book should be able to point you in the
right direction, but be careful about taking them too seriously.
Followup experiments by others did not always replicate Penfields
findings, and these often failed in problematic ways -- people reported
hearing both sides of a telephone conversation, or doing things or being
places that could be disconfirmed in independent ways.  The effects that
could most reliably be replicated were those that suggesting that
sensory pathways were getting activated by the stimulation: reports of
pure tones or flashes of monochrome light were very common.  Penfield's
work was certanly interesting, but the current attitude is that there
was a little less there than first appeared.

Jim Miller
Computer Thought, Dallas