Talk:V. S. Ramachandran/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about V. S. Ramachandran. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Big changes

Latest comment: 13 years ago16 comments3 people in discussion

In the past month, while I've been consumed with work, this article has really taken a beating.

First, the sections should be (and originally were) in chronological order. Although the biography manual of style provides far less detailed guidance than the medical articles manual of style, we can see that even when organized by topic sections should be in chronological order. See e.g., Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Noam Chomsky, Carl Sagan, etc.
On that same point, the heading levels for the sections (see table of contents) is a mess. For example, the two sections on mirror neurons and autism are now listed as subheadings of his early (1972 - 1991) work on vision! This is mostly due to this edit [1]
Finally, there was a consensus (see Talk:Vilayanur_S._Ramachandran#Article_protected_for_three_days above) to go back to the pre-debate April 21 version of Ramachandran's work on mirror neurons and autism. This consensus was not implemented, although I do not know why. Neurorel never gave a good reason not to go with the consensus on this.

I would suggest that a logical (chronological) order and appropriate edits would be:

Scientific career

Human vision
Phantom limbs
Mirror visual feedback
Capgras delusion
Synesthesia
Mirror neurons and autism

- Note: These two sections related to mirror neurons should be integrated, and as per consensus, we should return to the April 21 version of that section. Overall the section on Mirror neurons: theoretical implications is too long and detailed for a couple of web pop science pieces.

Body image integration disorder

Media should not typically be integrated into scientific career, especially not section on House, MD See, e.g. the Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan articles, two other scientists who have both done work in their field and been instrumental in popularizing that science.

Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ed, thank you for taking this to talk, and not reverting. I'm going to examine all of this closely, but first, I'd like you to reply to the three queries by Neurorel, directly above, and I would also like Neurorel and Edgeform to reply to your comments here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Smaller issues: Stanford, CASBS and Hilgard professorship

In 2001, Ramachandran was listed as a visitor at the Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford, as part of the Artful Mind https://www.casbs.org/local/artfulmind/index.html

While the 2005 appointment was the Hilgard appointment. The Hilgard professor/scholar issue has already been discussed above, and Neurorel has given no justification for changing it back to "scholar" talk:Vilayanur_S._Ramachandran#Hilgard_scholar.2Fprofessorship

These are quite separate Stanford appointments, and Neurorel's deletion is based on missing this fundamental point: 2001 was CASBS, 2005 was Hilgard. Edhubbard (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Smaller issues: Neurosciences Institute, Ariens-Kappers medal

Additional references for the Neurosciences Institute in La Jolla, and for the Ariens-Kappers medal are here:

This Reith lectures reference should be added to the Reith lectures and also notes the NSI appointment: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2003/lecturer.shtml

Similarly, Ramachandran's bio on the Edge website lists an appointment at the Neurosciences institute http://edge.org/print/profile.php?uid=376

Finally, on the Ariens-Kappers award, although the Kappers Award does not have full listings the program for the Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience lists all of the C.U. Ariëns Kappers Award Laureates, and it can be seen clearly that V. S. Ramachandran is listed as having won the 1999 award. http://www.knaw.nl/Content/Internet_KNAW/actueel/bestanden/20090612_Programme_NIN.pdf

Edhubbard (talk) 22:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Issues Large and Small

Edhubbard has done a great deal of work. I will try to address some of the issues he raises.

Arien-Kappers: I have added the year (1999) for he Arien-Kappers medal. That reference looks solid to me.

Order of Sections: I have no quarrel with the suggestion above--although I am not sure that a chronological order is the best order.

Combining Mirror Neuron sections: This has occurred to me as well. I will attempt to combine the two section Neurorel (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

Phantom Limbs: the earlier work of Melzack, Wall and Pons

I appreciate the in-depth knowledge that Ed brings to this subject. I don't think that we disagree. My concern is that Ramachandran's work on phantom limbs is an elaboration of ideas laid down by Ronald Melzack, Patrick Wall, (not to mention Timothy Pons). I believe Ramachandran acknowledges this fact in his research papers. And the actual MEG demonstration of Ramachandran's theory was carried out by Tony Yang, who was working on this Ph.D. under Floyd Bloom at Scripps Research Institute. I see a collaboration of neuroscientists whose ideas combined to give us a better understanding of how the brain changes. I think that contrasting Ramachanran's ideas to those of Freud is not entirely relevant to explaining Ramachandran's contribution to this subject.Neurorel (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Neruorel

Was Ramachandran a Post-Doc at Oxford?

I am not unsympathetic to the inferential case that Edhubbard is trying to build in regard to Ramachandran being a post-doc at Oxford. However, I think this is what Wikipedia refers to as original research. I don't think we can decide this matter based on the information we have.It goes without saying that if Professor Ramachandran would post a copy of his CV on his faculty page at UCSD this sort of confusion could be put to rest quickly.Neurorel (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

In fact, no. It is not original research. I provided a reference [2] and here is a second one [3]. The majority of what I wrote above was intended to refute the inferential case that you were making above. You argued that Ramachandran could not have been a post-doc at Oxford for two different reasons. First, you suggested that, since Ramachandran received his PhD in 1978 and began his appointment at CalTech in 1979, he didn't have time to be a post-doc at Oxford. I refuted that line of reasoning based on the simple fact that there are 12 months in a year, and Ramachandran's PhD was awarded before the end of 1978 (see above). You also stated in your edit summary [4] that his papers were published in 1977 and 1978, and therefore inferred that the work was conducted before his PhD. I pointed out that this is demonstrably false. His papers were published in 1977 and 1979, which is not before his PhD. Hence, neither of the inferential arguments you are trying to make go through, and the references I provided stand. Edhubbard (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem we [as wiki editors] face is that there is no primary record (so far) of Ramachanran holding a post-doc at Oxford. You are providing an interpretation based on the dates of published articles for which Ramachandran is a coauthor. These do not tell us directly if he was, or was not, a post-doc at Oxford. The current biographical sketch of Professor Ramachandran on the web site of the Center for Brain and Cognition makes no mention of a post-doc at Oxford. I would argue that mentioning the fact that Ramachandran published several papers with David Whitteridge is more interesting and significant than mentioning a very temporary post-doc appointment that he may or may not have held.Neurorel (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

It is clear from your reply here that you have not even looked at the references I provided. Please look at them. These are two separate sources, a speaker bio from Gustavus Aldolphus College, which states "after a term as a postdoc fellow at Oxford, he spent two years at Caltech as a research fellow before joining the psychology faculty at the University of California, San Diego, in 1983 as an assistant professor." and his bio from the Edge website which states: "Originally trained as a physician at Stanley Medical College, where he was awarded gold medals in pathology and clinical medicine,Ramachandran went on to earn a PhD in neurology from Trinity College at Cambridge University. Before moving to La Jolla, he held appointments at Oxford University and the California Institute of Technology." Both of these make clear that Ramachandran was appointed at Oxford prior to beginning his appointment at CalTech. As for your point about including the papers or the post-doc, there is no reason that we have to include only one or the other, and both are relevant and should be included. See Wikipedia:NOTPAPER#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia. Edhubbard (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hilgard Professor or Scholar at Stanford?

Pamela Widrin (Faculty Affairs and Administrator to the Chair) at the Department of Psychology, Stanford states the following:

"Professor V.S. Ramachandran, Director, Center for Brain & Cognition, University of California at San Diego was a Hilgard Scholar in the Department of Psychology, Stanford University from February 28 to March 4, 2005."

There are both Hilgard Vising Professors and Scholars at Stanford. Given the fact that Professor Ramachandran was at Stanford for five days I think it is logical to assume that he was a visiting scholar.Neurorel (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

Hi Neurorel, Since you suggested we go to the source, I also wrote to Pamela Wildrin, and here is her reply, verbatim. Strictly speaking, neither your mail nor mine are admissible, as they are not publicly available, but it may help to provide some clarity:

Dear Dr. Hubbard,

I am not certain if I can help with your debate but will make an attempt.

Scholars established in their field who are visiting Stanford from outside institutions or organizations and are funded from external or personal sources may be recommended by a Department Chair for a fixed-term designation of Visiting Scholar. The following are the minimum eligibility criteria for a Visiting Scholar designation at Stanford University:

the individual must be visiting from an outside institution or organization;

the individual must have a doctoral degree or be a recognized expert in his or her field; and

the source of salary funding for the individual must not be Stanford University.

In the case of a Hilgard Visiting Scholar, the funding is provided by the Hilgard scholarship which honors our much esteemed colleague, E.R. (“Jack”) Hilgard. Jack was very much concerned with graduate education, primarily in the Department of Psychology but also in the wider University, which he served as Dean of the Graduate Division.

If the visitor is a Professor at another institution, it is not uncommon that in addition to being referred to as a Hilgard Visiting Scholar, they will also be referred to as a Hilgard Visiting Professor or Hilgard Professor. Hence depending upon the credentials of the individual in question, both terms can apply. [Emphasis Added] Please note a Hilgard Visiting Professor or Hilgard Professor is a Visiting Scholar and is not a tenure or non-tenure line appointment at Stanford University.

I hope this adds some clarity.

Sincerest regards,

Pam

As can be seen clearly here, it is not logical to assume anything about the title based on length of stay. What counts are the credentials of the visitor. As Ramachandran has been a professor at another institution (UCSD) since 1983, he would be correctly referred to as a Hilgard Visiting Professor or Hilgard Professor for his visit in 2005, as per the e-mail from Pam, and as per his own statement on his webpage.

Additionally, this still does not address the point I made above that you deleted the mention of the Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences in 2001, which is separate, and which I provided a reference for.Edhubbard (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Although I think we are splitting hairs about the Hilgard position at Stanford, either term can apply. I have changed the term to "Hilgard visiting professor."Neurorel (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

Was Ramachandran's father an Indian diplomat?

The wikipedia entry states that Ramachandran's father, Vilayanur Subramanian, was an Indian diplomat. In an interview with Roger Bingham for the Science Network Ramachandran makes this statement and then goes on to give the following clarification:

RAMACHANDRAN: "No, my father died nearly 25 years ago, my mother is still

alive. And, he was the head of industry in the United Nations, peak of fame in

Thailand. That’s why I said diplomatic service. I’ve been to Singapore, Thailand,

Indiana, back and forth. So I was very muddled because I would spend six months

in school in England, and six months in India..."

This statement suggests that Ramachandran's father worked for the U.N. It might be more accurate to say that his father was "a diplomat who worked for the U.N." Neurorel (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

I think the quote doesn't really help to clear it up. As per the sources currently used to support the statement in the article, Ramachandran's father was "an Indian diplomat" [5] and "Ramachandran's father was a diplomat in the United Nations." [6]. The main reason it's unclear is not the sources, but rather that the organization of the UN is complicated. The American Ambassador to the UN works for the US government, but works at the UN. Similarly, American troops who are part of UN peacekeeping missions still work for the US military/government, but work with the UN force. So, prepositions matter here. Saying that Ramachandran's father worked for the UN goes beyond the information in our sources. Without a fair bit more information about which exact position Ramachandran's father held, and how that position was funded and organized, it's unclear. Was he a diplomat who worked in the UN as a representative of the Indian government, or was he actually directly paid by the UN? Note, too that "Indian diplomat" itself is ambiguous, as it could mean a person of Indian origin who was also a diplomat, or someone who was a diplomat for the (relatively newly independent at that time) country of India. The best might be "Ramachandran's father was an Indian diplomat in the United Nations." which is directly consistent with our sources, but doesn't infer something about working for the UN that might not be licensed. Edhubbard (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Another source, the Observer (UK) says neutrally "He was born into a well-established Brahmin family in Tamil Nadu in India. His father was a UN diplomat and his grandfather a former attorney general of Madras who had helped draft the Indian constitution." [7] Edhubbard (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Why use the term Psychophysics?

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Yes, "psychophysics" is an entry in wikipedia but does this term really add any useful information to the article on Ramachandran? The term psychophysics is poorly defined, to say the least. It suggests that it deals with the physics of psychology. If the term is being used to refer to his work in visual perception why not just use the term "visual perception"? Neurorel (talk) 23:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

I agree that "psychophysics" is a strange term, but as used for the past few decades it has a very definite and specific meaning, which is explained pretty clearly in the first paragraph of our psychophysics article. It is not by any means the same as perception. Looie496 (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Given the editing history, I somewhat wish that Ed had not been so quick to revert Neurorel's edit, but I agree with Ed and Looie that the term should be kept. I don't think there's a problem with confusing our readers, given the blue link, and it's actually helpful to include the added information. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Ramachandran's low-tech approach to experimental neuroscience is unique.

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The phrase "low-tech" is used extensively in articles to describe Ramachandran's experiments. If you google the phrase "Ramachandran low-tech" you will find six or seven links (on page one) to articles using this phrase. Ramachandran is unique among neuroscientists in his approach to experimental work. For better or worse he has not relied on high-tech neural scanning technology. In some interviews he has stated that he believes his "Victorian" approach to science has provided important insights. Of course, most neuroscientists do rely on neural scanning technology,and there has been criticism of his methods. In her recent book (Braintrust, 2011) Patricia Churchland states that mu-wave suppression methodology (used by Ramachandran and his graduate students) is not a valid index for measuring mirror neuron systems. Ramachandran's unusual approach to experimental neuroscience sets him apart and is an important aspect of his reputation.Neurorel (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

You are of course referring to where I reverted your addition of the phrase in the lead. Thanks, this explanation is very helpful. What you say here is fine. My concern was that the phrase, without explanation, sounded pejorative. With explanation, I would support adding it back. I think a single sentence, putting the phrase in context, perhaps accompanied by a direct quote about the "Victorian" approach, would be very apt. It's just that a reader cannot be expected to know the ways in which "low-tech" is considered a positive thing unless it is explained. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It's much better now. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Did Eric Kandel actually state that Ramachandran is "The modern Paul Broca"?

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

This claim has been repeated many times on many web pages but I cannot locate the original remark. Is there actually an original reference for this claim? Neurorel (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

Kandel's statement is from the back cover of A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness.Neurorel (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

Reference Needed for Decade of the Brain Lecture (1995)

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There appear to be several series of "Decade of the Brain" lectures given 1995 - 1996. One series was given at the Library of Congress and another at the Congress of Neurological Surgeons. There may have also been a series given at the Society of Neuroscience but so far I have not been able to locate a lecture given by Ramachandran. Apparently the yearly conference of the Society for Neuroscience is a very large affair. The wiki entry on this subject states that in 2008 "More than 15,500 presentations were given, including 12 special lectures, 21 symposia, and 25 mini-symposia..."Neurorel (talk) 22:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

Ramachandran Bios in independent sources:

1995 Decade of the Brain Lecture at the 25th Anniversary SFN meeting:

http://books.google.com/books?ei=iKOLTtSlJs6htwedvLmbAw&ct=result&id=0Z0TAQAAMAAJ&dq=society+for+neuroscience+25th+annual+meeting&q=%22decade+of+the+brain+lecture%22+V.S.+Ramachandran#search_anchor (ps: sometimes you have to click this link twice; search is not entirely reliable, but this is only a WP:Convenience link)
http://www.sfn.org/index.aspx?pagename=programs_fellowshipsAwardsAndPrizes

Decade of the Brain Keynote Lecture at NIH/LOC in 1999:

Edhubbard (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC), Updated Edhubbard (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have a policy about forthcoming talks and events?

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It seems to me that we should avoid using biographical entries as a venue for advertising forthcoming lectures and talks. I have never seen an encyclopedia that lists future talks and events. The Ramachandran Gifford lecture will take place in 2012 and can be listed then. The same principle should apply to listing forthcoming events on synesthesia. Neurorel (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

Given the practice of having entire articles for upcoming events, like the following:

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mylo_Xyloto

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Tour_de_France

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_presidential_election_united_states

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_NASCAR_Sprint_Cup_Series

It hardly seems inappropriate to have single, well-referenced sentences about upcoming events that Ramachandran is directly involved in, and that are notable, for example, because they independently have a wikipedia article. Edhubbard (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Section On Synesthesia is too long and too technical.

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Ed, I realize that you are very dedicated to this article and the section on synesthesia in particular. You did your Ph.D. work under Ramachandran on the subject of synesthesia and were were a speaker at the recent synesthesia conference at UCSD. However, I have had several people read this section and they agree that it is too technical. I think you are in the best position to rewrite this section so that a wiki reader (who has a general interest in Ramachandran's work) could understand the section without becoming a Ph.D. Honestly, this has nothing to do with dumbing down the section. The article as a whole is rather more sophisticated than most. Save the extremely technical discussions for the article on synesthesia. Neurorel (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

I don't feel very strongly about it, but I would lean towards agreeing with Neurorel that there's a bit too much detail. In any case, simply reverting, instead of trying to find a middle ground (perhaps keeping a version of the paragraph, but in shorter form), was not necessary. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I have now tried to shorten the section, while retaining the essential points. Neurorel's habit of completely deleting material that he finds objectionable/technical/unreferenced etc, first, and only then coming to the talk page is part of the problem here. If he would raise issues first, and attempt discussion, I would be happier to discuss, but it appears that the routine we are in is, he comes along, deletes a bunch of stuff, then I revert, then we talk about it. Maybe we could try the other way around? Edhubbard (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Ed, for making a compromise shortening. But I suggest that you drop the personal complaints. It seems to me that Neurorel's shortening of the section was entirely a good faith effort to improve the page, and I supported it, with a few very minor tweaks. You initially over-reacted when you reverted it. It's time to move on now. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The new version by Neurorel is certainly not an improvement. First, there is no need to delete the neuroimaging portion to include the work on language, metaphor and the angular gyrus. In general, there should be a balance between presentation of Ramachandran's theorizing and his empirical work. This edit (as have many others in the past) tend to focus on the theoretical to the detriment of the empirical. Second, if we are going to include that material, it should include mention of, and a wikilink to the bouba-kiki effect. Third, there is no need to quote extensively from the paper. Good writing on wikipedia would involve summarizing in the author's own words. Fourth, the new reference is the same as the existing one, and really should use the cite:php as per WP:CITE. Edhubbard (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Due to being busy in real life for the next few days, I haven't had time to review the new changes as carefully as I would have liked to, but my gut reaction on a quick read is that the section was fine yesterday, and that the newest edits have made it less encyclopedic, so yes, all of us ought to take a close look at that. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Ed has done a good job of condensing the material on the more speculative theories of Ramachandran. I still think that there should be no more than one paragraph about the more technical side of this discussion. I believe we are making progress. Neurorel (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

I'm confused. There is only one paragraph on the technical (i.e., neuroimaging) stuff (unless you count the behavioral studies as technical, too?). Indeed, the new paragraph on the imaging stuff integrates language that you wrote (mildly edited), as I think I see what you were after with that portion. Edhubbard (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind what Ramachandran would say at a public lecture

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The next to last version of this section (before you reverted to the version you prefer) is a very nicely balanced combination of contributions from both of us. The version you reverted to is too technical, in my opinion. I believe you are too close to the subject matter. Remember that this is a wiki article about Ramachadran, not synesthesia. Let's imagine what Ramachandran would say at a public lecture on synesthesia as our model.Neurorel (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

First of all, I don't think that a public lecture is ever the correct comparison. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a public lecture. We have wikilinks, which allow a reader to go and access new information and terms, to find out more about the material and so on. Readers can return to the material again and again, as they like. As an encyclopedia, we also have a policy of no original research, while a public lecture by a scientist would be expected to include the results of his or her latest original research, and also have policies on verifiability and sourcing that cannot be met during a lecture. So, I think the public lecture comparison is completely off here. But, second of all, even if we were to use that standard, your argument that the imaging work should not be included would not go through. As you mentioned, I've just seen a public lecture by Ramachandran, less than one week ago, and in that lecture, he *did* talk about the imaging work, as part of his overall presentation that included discussion of our behavioral studies, of other cutting edge research coming out of his lab, and the work on metaphor and so on. Edhubbard (talk) 09:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the current version of the section "Synesthesia and the evolution of language" is a bit long but represents a good balance between experimental research and theoretical speculation. Please bear in mind that almost everything in the section is either a direct contribution by you (Ed Hubbard) or an indirection contribution by you taken from the paper you co-authored with Ramachandran.Neurorel (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

If by the "current version" you mean the one without the two sentences about the neuroimaging studies, I still disagree. These were the sentences you initially deleted, which I then reverted. As per Tryptofish's comments above, I shorted and simplified those sentences. You then again deleted them to replace the shorted and simplified imaging studies with the speculative parts of our 2001 paper. Those additions were poorly written and formatted (as I noted above, and as supported by Tryptofish's comment), so I cleaned them up, integrated them with the two simplified, shortened imaging sentences, and created a compromise section. In your latest edits, you have quite simply deleted these sentences which present the empirical studies that Ramachandran's group has conducted. As such, the section is now essentially devoid of data. It currently presents a model (with no mention of any empirical tests), and then the speculative parts of our 2001 paper, and then statements that he has worked in other areas and hosted the ASA meeting. My objection is, quite simply, that the section now focuses two paragraphs almost entirely on the one 2001 paper, and of that, a large portion is on the most speculative parts. I still believe that the two simplified sentences on neuroimaging should stand, and the section title should be simply "synesthesia", as the entire section covers much more than just the speculations on synesthesia and the evolution of language. Whether this includes contributions by me or not is irrelevant. Edhubbard (talk)

Public Lecture To The Royal Society

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have changed the description of this lecture to reflect the fact that it was a public lecture sponsored by the John Temlpleton Fondation that was held in a lecture hall that is rented out by the the Royal Society for public talks.Neurorel (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

Ramachandran states that his father was an engineer named V.M. Subramanian

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the Science Network interview conducted by Roger Bingham Ramachandran states that his father was an engineer named V.M. Subramanian who was "the head of industry in the united Nations..."[[8]] He has also mentioned the fact that his father was an engineer in more recent interviews. In the Science Network interview Ramachandran also states that his father was a diplomat in Thailand and Bangkok. There are internet references to an engineer named V.M. Subramanian who worked for the UN Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)in Asia during the period when Ramachandran was a child. This person is undoubtedly the person Ramachandran is referring to in his interviews.Neurorel (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

Is Ramachandran's 1992 theory on Phantom Limb sensations still current and valid?

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

First. The material I added is based on chapter 19 of Reprogramming the cerebral cortex: plasticity following central and peripheral lesions, Oxford, 2006, Edited by Stephen Lomber. Chapter 19 was written by Herta Flor (one of the world's leading authorities on phantom limb pain) and Professor Caroline Koeppe, also a neuroscientist at the University of Heidelberg. Quoting directly from this chapter:

"Contrary to the assumption of Ramachandran et al.(1992) they could not find a clear relationship between referred sensations and cortical reorganization...Cortical reorganization is thus only associated with phantom limb pain, but not with non-painful phantom sensations or residual limb phenomena."(Page 334)

In 1996 Knecht et al. carried out an experiment that attempted to replicate Ramachandran's results and concluded that there was no correlation between referred sensations and cortical reorganization. The paper that presented the results of that research was co-authored by seven highly regarded neuroscientists.

Ramachanran is best known for his daring speculations. Given the fact that he has formulated theories in a wide range of areas extending from the evolution of language to the causes of autism, it is not surprising that some of his ideas have failed to hold up. That's the way science advances. In this case there has been almost twenty years of intensive research since Ramachandran formulated his theory about referred sensations and cortical reorganization. I believe it is appropriate to make mention of the fact that his theory about phantom limb sensations has been overtaken by more recent research.Neurorel (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

Early Life and Education: Naming Convention

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Currently, the article says that: (in accordance with Indian family name traditions, first and middle names are replaced with the birth place and father's name—accordingly Vilayanur is his birth place and Subramanian is his father's name). I believe that this is incorrect. If his father's name was Vilayanur Subramanian then Ramachandran is named after his father. Naming conventions vary from region to region in India. I believe the naming convention for Ramachandran does not include his birth place but I could be mistaken. Neurorel (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

I agree. This material was added by an IP editor here with an address in India [9]. I thought that, even if true, it was too much detail as we wikilink to the relevant wikipedia page, and I think you were right to remove it. Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"ur" (oor) in tamil means "place". But many place names have been adapted as family names by prominent families in those places. Place names are not usually used along with official names in south (and even north) India. So vilayannur might be the family name. (Family name)+(Father's Name)+(Person's Name) is one of the naming convention used in Tamil nadu. (Family name)+(Person's Name)is also used. Different formats are used even amongst members of same family. Ramachandran is a very common name in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.79.40.4 (talk) 11:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Tamil language version of V.S. Ramachandran in first sentence

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

With all due respect for Tamil language and culture, I don't believe that the Tamil version of Ramachandran's name belongs in the first sentence. It should be included as part of the section that describes Ramachandran's background. Also, I have never seen any reference to his name in Tamil in published articles or interviews so this appears to be a form of original research.Neurorel (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Neurorel

Actually, the inclusion of non-English/non-Roman names in parentheses right after the English/Roman alphabet name seems to be pretty standard wikipedia practice for people born outside the U.S.: see e.g., Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Mahatma Gandhi, Vladimir Lenin, Vladimir Nabokov. None of the other articles that do this have references to the non-Roman versions either, as this appears to be a non-controversial translation issue. I have no strong opinion about it, but the precedent seems to be well established. Edhubbard (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

And, as I said at my user talk, I'm ardently neutral. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I just looked this up, as I was curious. WP:NAMES has no explicit guidance on non-Roman names, but changed names, maiden names, etc, also go right after the first mention of the article subject's name, which seems to be the policy adopted across the articles I wikilinked above. I also looked around a little on the talk page for WP:Names, and didn't see any clear guidance. Edhubbard (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

One more policy that seems relevant: Wikipedia:Lead_section#Proper_names_and_titles does suggest exactly what we see here, which is the English version followed by the original language version in parentheses with the language indicated. Edhubbard (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Conversely the same policy also states: "In any case, consider footnoting equivalents in non-roman scripts and their transliterations rather than placing them at the opening of an article." so either would be appropriate based on what I can find in the relevant policy pages. Edhubbard (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I have looked at quite a few articles in wikipedia and the trend appears to be that the "indigenous" or historical language version of the name and/or the pronunciation is given in the opening paragraph. For example, the wiki entry for Mahatma Gandhi gives both the Gujarati and Sanskrit versions of his name. In many cases this approach strikes me as an exotic distraction. I think that wiki editors might want to consider moving the information about indigenous/historical names to the information summary box on the right. In the case of V.S. Ramachandran I think it would be fair to ask the question: Other than the geographic location of his childhood, how is he associated to Tamil language and culture? Does he speak or write in Tamil? Does he consider himself to be Tamil? I have come across interviews in which he talks about the culture and history of India but not the history of Tamil culture. Given the fact that his grandfather was one of the architects of the modern Indian state, he may well identify with India rather than Tamil Nadu. I think we should provide information that has an actual basis in the biographical facts pertaining to the person in the entry. What are the facts pertaining to V.S. Ramachandran? Neurorel (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Neurorel

Discussion of Mirror Therapy

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Since the discussion of mirror therapy is complex it makes more sense to move the core of the discussion to the wiki entries on phantom limbs and the mirror box. There is no simple answer to the question: is mirror therapy effective? There have been a variety of studies and there have been a wide range of results. Also, since this discussion involves a product that is currently being marketed to the public we need to take special care to provide a balanced, accurate account of the research. V.S. Ramachandran is clearly in the camp that believes that mirror therapy is effective; however there are distinguished pain researchers such as Lorimer Moseley who have have suggested that there is no conclusive evidence that mirror therapy is effective as a stand alone therapy.Neurorel (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Neurorel

Was Ramachandran's 2005 research on stroke and metaphors ever published?

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There are several articles (which appear in both Nature and Scientific American) reporting that Ramachandran had presented research at the 2005 American Psychological Association (now APS) convention. Ramachandran states that his team evaluated four stroke victims who had lesions in the agular gyrus and who had difficulty explaining metaphors. Was this research ever published?Neurorel (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)Neurorel

Synesthesia Section: Can it be shortened?

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The material I removed was largely material I added to the section. Ramachandran's speculations about synesthesia as the outcome of cross wiring were half right. Some synesthesia appears to be the result of cross wiring in the fusiform gyrus (as Ramachandran speculated) and some appears to be the result of higher order activity in the parietal areas as demonstrated by Tessa van Leeuwen. Either way it was the recent work of Tessa van Leeuwen that showed that Ramachandran was partially right. I have no quarrel with the current section except that it seems too long and rather technical for someone who is not a neuroscientist.Neurorel (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Neurorel

I think I agree with the IP editor who reverted you. As they said in their edit summary, you removed the work of the subject of the page, and left the work of someone else. I understand your concern that the information is overly long and outdated, but that was the wrong way to fix it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)