The most likely explanation is that the the newspaper article grossly misrepresented the study, this is not uncommon.
Sheldrake at least is a well known crank, I’ve read some of his stuff on ‘morphic fields’, which is about as scientifically well founded as the force. Le Fanu I only know as a Victorian author of ghost stories (my girlfriend has a collection of short stories of his), and it would surprise me if he has to say anything current on the subject, seeing how he’s been dead for 140 years now.
A great link, I really enjoyed his talk.
That’s really interesting; I had never considered that before.
You know, quantum physics might explain this. Maybe there is bleed-through from all the other parallel possibilities where the subject didn’t lose their limb. 
If you stop and think about it, the parts of the brain that used to go to the amputated limb are still intact, and so are the nerves down to the point where the amputation was made. Those systems can still send and receive signals. That is the phantom limb.
The phantom limb isn’t necessarily painful or itching, but because there is scar tissue and an abnormal situation the signaling can get messed up or interpreted as pain. A non-painful phantom limb can, apparently, aid in using a prosthesis. A painful phantom limb is, of course, another matter and treatments for that particular condition are definitely desirable.
So no, it’s not neurological disorder, it’s actually the normal response to an amputation.
Sorry, I guess I shouldn’t have said “disorder.” More like, “neurological basis” for it.
As for the experiment in the OP, this sounds more like an example of the placebo effect, if there’s even a tiny kernel of truth in it.
To say I am skeptical (I mean of the OP, not the phantom limb phenomenon) would be a wild understatement. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and this would go way beyond extraordinary.
Can you suggest any good references to learn more about this? The general concept of the brain post-processing input has been around for a while, but only recently have I heard about the retinal processing being proved out. One quote I’ve heard is something like ‘The eye is more of an extension of the brain than the other sense organs’. Not sure if the comparison to other sense organs is accurate, but it’s an interesting subject. It turns the basic concept around to the brain receiving information from a pre-processor, or maybe the eye could be called a ‘smart device’.
This is true quite literally, as the optical nerve and retina originate as an outgrowth of the brain during foetal development.
I imagine James Randi doing a much better controlled experiment. Further, I’d like to see how they interpret the data, and whether there is a huge amount of confirmation bias.
I have Googled both James Lefanu and Rupert Sheldrake.
According to Google, James Lefanu is a physican and science author in the UK where he writes a science and medicine column for “The Telegraph”. In addition, he has written numerous books on medicine related topics.
His latest offering is: “Why us: how science rediscovered the mystery of ourselves”. According to the Amazon reviews, LeFanu discusses the most recent advances in both genetics and neurobiology. Apparently, he takes the view that the latest discoveries do more to tell us how little we know about either, as opposed to their answering many long standing questions.
Rupert Sheldrake is, according to Google, a very well credentialed biologist and author; he has published numerous research articles and books. His latest offering is: “Morphic Resonance: the nature of formative causation.” In its Amazon reviews it is said that Sheldrake presents his theory explaining some of the mysteries of biological science; for example: why cells differentiate to form different organs; why some creatures have the ability to regenerate limbs; why killing the queen of a termite colony causes the colony degenerates into chaos; how schools of fish and birds communicate in order to move as a coherent body.
The common factor linking these authors is the fact that they are both ridiculed and belittled by the scientific establishment. In my opinion, this is not necessarily a condemnation; the scientific establishment has a long and distinguished history of ridiculing ideas that challenge conventional wisdom, and are subsequently proven to be true.
Given that these authors are discussing topics of interest to me, I figure the investment of around $25 is worth it to find out what they have to say on the subjects. I will be checking my mail for a package from Amazon.
However, on the subject of “phantom limbs”, and specifically the experiments described in the newspaper article, so far I have not found any reference to the specific experiments. But will keep looking.
“But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”
- Carl Sagan
You must have a different Google than I do. When I looked up Sheldrake, this was the first result:
Rupert Sheldrake Online - Homepage
Rupert Sheldrake biologist author telepathy research, morphic resonance, powers of animals, psychic pets, dogmatic skepticism, media skeptics.
In case you missed it the first time, psychic pets.
All we know is that he was a botanist–not a developmental biologist or a neuroscientist–until 25 years ago, when he went off to live in an ashram and started writing about mystical energy fields and stuff. And psychic pets.
You will find no one who agrees with this more than I.
I am skeptical about the claims.
Am I really the only amputee Doper? (Right leg BK)
I suffer from both RLS and Phantom pains. In my case they feel like really strong foot cramps. It’s not fascinating to me, it sucks. Thankfully, the Gabapentin helps.
This all sounds like a lot of nonsense to me. The pains don’t originate in the area where my leg was, they originate in my brain. No stimulus to the air near my stump is going to cause a reaction. That would be magic. Magic is not real.
Actually, this is the whole point of the discussion.
From what I have read over the past couple of days, there is a lot of dispute regarding where the pain originates. You may perceive the pain in your brain, but that does not mean that that is where it originates. So the question being asked is: “where is this pain originating”?
Regarding the “stimulus in the air”, that may not work for you, but we are still trying to determine if it does for other people.
Probably you are right, but we are still in the process of figuring that out.
The stimulus to the air thing I can see working if the patient can see what’s happening, but if it’s behind a screen then that requires something way beyond a current understanding of the physical world.
No you are not (right leg AK) and I agree with everything you said.
It is complete bullshit. Just another data point.
To expand on my earlier post and I think many amputees would agree, phantom pain happens at random. I have been an amputee for 24 years and still get PP maybe once a month, without warning.
I have not been able to define any external stimulus connected to it. It can last from a few minutes to a few hours. To me, it’s kind of like an itch you can’t scratch ranging to feeling like my non-existent ankle is being crushed in a vise.