Talk:Wilder Penfield

message: This article fails to mention the infamous burnt toast PSA.  Also, watching an episode of the animated television show Home Movies, a character "dying" screams out something about burnt toast.  I wonder if there are other mentions of him in popular culture.
:Haha! I've never heard of this before. Here's the PSA. Semiconscious • talk 04:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I think this topic deserves its own section here, as this is something Penfield was interested in.
Of course, this reaches outside the scope of neurosurgery.
In particular, I beleive the statement made in this article that the idea that a being makes exact recordings of its experiences though these are not available to conscious recall is a "common misconception" is inappropriate in this context.
The topic of the human soul quickly takes us outside the world of conventional science, and in that world it might just as easily be claimed that the idea that the human soul does not exist or cannot be measured is a "common misconception" of science!
I hope all see my point.
There are quite large bodies of data on the nature of the human "soul" or "spirit", its abilities and its relationship to the mind. They lie outside the boundaries of science, but partly because science has chosen its own boundaries. Though much of this work would not meet the standards of science, and perhaps is not intended to, there is a considerable body of work in this area which could be taken seriously if science chose to do so.
Though I am mostly familiar with the work of L. Ron Hubbard, which is widely available and easy to get one's hands on, that does not mean it is the only "serious" work done in this area. That its findings might be a bit surprising should, it seems to me, be seen a par for the course.
But within this broader body of work, the data regarding human memory (mentioned above) is quite clear: Not only is "photographic memory" a factual ability that some people have, it can, at least to a degree, be rehabilitated in anyone. This would include the ability to recall through any of the normal human senses, and might include perceptions considered unusual in humans. Even for those who cannot reconcile such findings with their own knowledge or training, the literature on these subjects is fascinating reading (or listening - as some of it exists only in lecture form). And to the extent that this subject might include basic truths about life, it could point a way through some of the current paradoxes of science into new technologies that, in the right hands, would be very useful to society.
L e cox (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is a collaborative project that includes as many Christian zealots as it does anti-religious editors. Please feel free to add a section on Penfield's investigations of the soul - but do keep the tone neutral, rather than favouring religion.Newzild (talk) 05:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I would love to see a little more on this topic, but I have no idea what documentation exists. The footnote supporting it is to a PBS page which doesn't go into any more detail (nor provide additional grounding) than the one sentence in the intro paragraph here. I'm more than half inclined (but not going to do it) to remove the one sentence from the intro just because it's not so much information as a teaser. --Haruo (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The human soul 

message: One way this article can be improved is adding information regarding Penfields discoveries and research with the homunculus. In there the map of the brain generated by Penfield could be incorporated.
Another topic that should be talked about is hallucinations. Penfield did a lot of work with this topic and i think i should have some focus in the article.
HRThomas15 (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretive Cortex 

message: One item that the Talk section of Wikipedia mentioned the article needed is Penfield's homunculus. Our group could add that section to the article and add an image(s) to go along with the information provided. Also adding information about the interpretive cortex into the Neural Stimulation section will help the article.  
Alaynakrantz (talk) 02:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Improvement Suggestions  

message: I think that the homunculus is very interesting. There is also a page on this topic linked to this article. I think that yes, we should include a picture in the Wilder Penfield article. I think that including a topic about hallucinations in the neural stimulation section would be a great addition as recommended. I also think that we could include the topics: deja vu, flashbacks, illusions, and synesthesia.Cristina4459 (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding on Interpretive Cortex 

message: 1. Add information to the article regarding Penfield's Homunculus. With this, we should add an image or images to that section. 
2. Major sections under the interpretive cortex - some sections we could add under the interpretive cortex would include hallucinations, illusions, deja vu, flashbacks, synesthesia, and any other major sections that belong under the interpretive cortex section. 
Alaynakrantz (talk) 23:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone needs to re-write the section on deja-vu, as this is terrible at the moment. It reads like a high school essay on deja vu in general, rather than explaining Penfield's contributions.Newzild (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: To Do List

message: Wilder Penfield - intro
Biography
Neural Stimulation
    (**New) - Penfield's Homunculu  
            - Interpretive Cortex 
                  - Major sections (hallucinations, illusions, deja vu, flashbacks, synesthesia, etc.)
Legacy 
In Popular Culture
 
Notes
References
Selected Books & Publications
 
External Links 
Alaynakrantz (talk) 23:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Outline

message: "The Role of the Temporal Cortex in Certain Psychical Phenomena"
HRThomas15 (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: New References

message: Unless we can think of any other major sections to go under our interpretive cortex information, it looks like we have about 6 new items that we are thinking about adding to the article. I was thinking about splitting up those topics and have two for each of us. 
I could work on the information for Penfield's homunculus, and whichever other topic is left after Cristina and Haley pick their topics. I'll put in information that I find in my research, and possibly any image or images that are relevant. 
Alaynakrantz (talk) 23:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Divided Tasks

message: Nice job, group. There already quite a bit of content in this article, but there are still lots of ways you can improve it. Time to start reading the articles you've found so you can add to the article. However, the better you organize your work at the early stages, the easier it will be to add on later. Remember the rules - encyclopedic style, no original research WP:NOR, etc. 
:Regarding the homunculus - this is an iconic image for Penfield's work. Good idea to address it. However, there is already an article on Cortical homunculus. You mainly just need to link to it. J.R. Council (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Nice start!

message: Penfield's findings go past somatosensory and motor cortices. Penfield's work also consisted of charting the functions of the parietal and temporal lobes. When electrodes were placed in those ares Penfield found that it would elicit patients dreams, smells, visual and auditory hallucinations, and even out of body experiences. <http://scienceblogs.com/neurophilosophy/2008/08/27/wilder-penfield-neural-cartographer/ref> HRThomas15 (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: hallucinations & Illusions

message: One of Penfield's contributions to psychology was the Cortical Homunculus which explained how different portions of the brain control specific parts of the body by sensory or motor cortex stimulation.Alaynakrantz (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Cortical Homunculus and Deja Vu

message: General comment: You have not made any additions to the main article, but have continued to list ideas/information on the Talk page. That is okay, but for Assignment 9, you need to start adding to the article according to your additions to the talk page. I agree with your assessment of what needs to be done – so time to get started!
:See the brochure, Editing Wikipedia Articles on Psychology, 2nd page, Organizing your article/An article on a psychologist.
After reading the main article, here are my comments on the sections:
 
1. Intro
*You could add a few sentences related to the contributions you will be adding in.
2. Biography
*This seems very complete. No need for additional detail.
3. Neural stimulation
*I think you should start a new main section titled “Scientific contributions”, with neural stim as a subsection. Then add in additional sections for information you’ve reviewed on the Talk page.
:Remember that there is already a Wikipedia article on the cortical homunculus that you can link this article to.
J.R. Council (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback for Assignment 9 

message: When I ran the article information through SafeAssign on Blackboard, it came back that none of the information we contributed as a group was plagarized and added to the article. The information was found to be consistent with what we put on Wikipedia but did not match up with other sources besides that. If we do need to change anything, we sure can.Alaynakrantz (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  SafeAssign feedback 

message: Hi,
Just reading now and thought the deja vu section to be a bit random: there's one sentence at the start mentioning that Penfield was interested in it, and then the rest of the paragraph is just a description of what deja vu is - with nothing about Penfield's work or theories on the subject. It is also poorly written (sorry)(very jerky, little awkward sentences throughout).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.95.213 (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I totally agree - I came to the talk page to make this very point. Someone needs to re-write the section completely. It reads like a high school essay on deja vu in general, rather than explaining Penfield's contributions.Newzild (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deja vu section 

message: The reference cited makes no mention of "contemplation of whether there was any scientific basis for the existence of the human ear."PurpleChez (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead paragraph 

message: I was reading through this article in light of today's Google Doodle celebrating Mr. Penfield's birthday, and I noticed that the Place of Birth is Spokane, WA in the "Biography: Early life and education" section, but it's listed as Potlatch, ID in the Bio card on the right-hand side. After looking these up, it's a little unclear as to why; they're both cities near the WA-ID border, but they're approximately 70 miles away from one another, and there are several municipalities dividing them. Is one the current-day municipality, and the other just a closest-major-city inscription from a birth certificate or from self-styling (ie. being born in Cheektowaga or Niagara Falls but having Buffalo listed as city of birth)? Is there a recommended way to resolve this discrepancy? It just seems unprofessional. — 65.31.128.180 (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place of Birth between Biography: Early life and Bio card 

message: I sense protection is needed based off the vandalism, the last 2 Google images for the people were protected. 47.208.17.115 (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: There were multiple spelling errors Bogaric (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Meters (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2018 

message: If Penfield's "nationality" should be included in the infobox at all, it should be cleared up first what exactly it was.  If this can't be done definitively, then it should be left out of the infobox.
Here's a source that touches on it.  there is the quote:
: ... it was not until this moment that Wilder could say without regret, "I am no longer an American."
But the source does not make it clear whether this is a literal quote of Penfield's or whether it's the author assuming Penfield's voice (an as if situation).  Wikipedia doesn't get to choose a favoured or "likely" interpretation—it requires verification. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality