I wrote, referring to the observations of the philosophers J. La
Mettrie and B. Keefer:
> >
> >.... Is the difference between headless chicken (Bob's observation) and
> > headless rooster (Julien de la M's observation) significant? Surely
> > the topic cries out for an experiment. Where are all the drunken
> > soldiers with sabres when you need them?
> >
> > -Stephen
And Pamela Joyce Shapiro commented:
>
> The difference is in the precise location of the cut, no?
I think Joyce is on to something. Back in the 50s and 60s a popular
neurophysiological manoeuver was to cut entirely through the nervous
system of some animal, usually a cat (a "transection"). The method was
first used by Bremer and later by others such as Jouvet to study sleep
mechanisms; they usually studied only what happened above the level of
the cut. However, I recall that a neurophysiologist named Villablanca
reported on what happened both above and below the level of the cut.
If the cut was high enough, I believe that the animal still retained
muscle tone and posture.
So possibly drunken soldiers aim high when cutting the heads off
roosters; farm boys may aim low with chickens. W have an obvious
confounding of sex and level of cut. I still think we need an
experiment. Anyone still cutting the heads off chickens willing to
give it a try? Inquiring minds want to know.
-Stephen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Black, Ph.D. tel: (819) 822-9600 ext 2470
Department of Psychology fax: (819) 822-9661
Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lennoxville, QC
J1M 1Z7
Canada Department web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
