Neurology of Human Nature | Vilayanur Ramachandran | Nobel Conference

Vilayanur Ramachandran speaking at the 47th annual Nobel Conference in Gustavus Adolphus College in 2011 - "The Brain and Being Human."
Lecture - The Neurology of Human Nature
Presented by Vilayanur Ramachandran, M.D., Ph.D.
Director of the Center for Brain and Cognition and Professor, Psychology Department and Neurosciences Program, University of California, San Diego.
Subjects:
-Beginning of Lecture (8:31)
-Apotemnophilia (11:16)
-Phantom Limb Syndrome (22:07)
-Synesthesia (40:57)
-Beginning of Q&A (1:01:30)
#nobelconference
#scienceandethics
#citizenscience
#science
The Nobel Conference: Science and Ethics, in Dialogue
Since 1965, the Nobel Conference has been bringing leading researchers and thinkers to Gustavus Adolphus College in Saint Peter, Minnesota, to explore revolutionary, transformative and pressing scientific issues and the ethical questions that arise alongside them.
As the only event in the United States authorized by the Nobel Foundation in Stockholm, Sweden to use this name, it is our privilege to host a space in which we can talk about big scientific questions, and the big ethical issues to which they inevitably give rise. The world needs more people who think critically about the crucial issues of our time, and who ask questions in ways that open up the conversation.
Find us at gustavus.edu/n...
Follow us on Facebook at / nobelconference
Follow us on Twitter at / nobelconference

[@SomeAnimeOtaku]

It starts at 8:30

[@Ramdat555]

except in texas

[@austingallaher5475]

Ramachandran starts out by referring to a "body image" in the brain. He states that this theory was put forward by Henry Head and Lord Brain. What he does not tell the audience is that this model was advanced in the 1930s. Modern neuroscience does not support this model. Ramachandran then puts up a slide of an area know as the Penfield map (named after the famous Canadian neurosurgeon). This is widely accepted by contemporary neuroscience; however as Ramachandran mentions (vaguely) he found no evidence that there were any changes in the Penfield map. So, no evidence to support his theory. He then moves farther back to a different area of the brain and claims that he was able to identify weaker than normal outputs, and that this corresponds to the desire for amputation. He does this by taking galvanic skin readings on the surface of the skin. Most neuroscientists would find this claim laughable. However, Ramachandran is very good at linking metaphors so if you are not familiar with the neuroscience involved, you might not notice that his explanation is more science fiction than science.

[@swapnilnaik515]

@Austin Gallaher, why would most neuroscientists find this laughable?? V.S. Ramachandran has clearly given the explanation. The somatosensory (pain, temperature, touch...) pathways do relay in the parietal lobe (the post central gyrus, behind the central sulcus) and especially for the pain pathways the signal goes further to insular cortex and anterior cingulate gyrus, where the affective component of pain is experienced or appreciated. The GSR does measure the gut reactions i.e. the autonomic sweat response to arousable, fearful, or unpleasant stimuli...in this case the extraneous arm...he explains that though in the S1 map (Penfield's sensory homunculus ) there was no problem (i.e. the map was complete), there was a deletion of the area of representation of the part of the arm which the "patient" felt a need to get removed/amputated, in the superior parietal lobule, SPL...(This fact, the loss of representation of the part of the arm in the SPL, was most likely gleaned from Magnetic encephalogram combined with other imaging studies....) He had to cover up many topics, and there wouldn't have been much time and space to explain this ( the magnetic encephalogram and the basis by which the loss of representation was found....)....so I believe that your concluding remark, that it is more science fiction than science is not founded completely in research...