Charles Sherrington

Charles Sherrington nsIn existographies, Charles Sherrington (1857-1952) (IQ:180|#98) [RGM:423|1,500+] (RE:95) [CR:123] was an English physiologist notable for his 1937-38 University of Edinburgh Gifford Lectures turned 1940 book Man on His Nature, revised second 1950 edition, wherein, building on the earlier Aristotelian-debunking work of Jean Fernel (1548), he hammers in solidifying the defunct theory of life point of view.

In 1897, Sherrington postulated the existence of the synapse—a term which he coined, from the Greek sunaptein, meaning ‘to fasten together’—as follows: [9]

“So far as our present knowledge goes, we are led to think that the tip of a twig of the arborescence [of a neuron] is not continuous with but merely in contact with the substance of the dendrite or cell body on which it impinges. Such a special connection of one nerve cell with another might be called a synapse.”

In 1906, Sherrington, in his The Integrative Action of the Nervous System, a collection of ten lectures delivered two years before at Yale University, summarized two decades of painstaking experimental observations and his incisive interpretation of them; settling the then-current debate between the “Reticular Theory” versus “Neuron Doctrine” ideas about the fundamental nature of the nervous system in mammals in favor of the latter, and it changed forever the way in which subsequent generations have viewed the organization of the central nervous system. This book, being Sherrington's magnum opus, contains basic concepts and even terminology that are now second nature to every student of the subject. (Ѻ)

In 1932, Sherrington won the Nobel Prize in physiology for work in neurophysiology.

In 1938, Sherrington, gave his Man on His Nature lecture turned a book., at the University of Edinburgh Gifford Lectures, wherein, building on Jean Fernel’s 1548 On the Hidden Causes of Things, basically calls "bunk" all previous "models of life" as nonsensical anthropisms, as per chemistry and physics now see things; the following being examples:

“Both the scientific and the everyday elbow are one and the same system of electrical charges. It is of no use asking physics and chemistry whether it is alive. They do not understand the word.”
— Charles Sherrington (1938), Man on His Nature (pg. 236)

“When physics and chemistry have entered on their description of the perceptible, life disappears from the scene, and consequently death. Both are anthropisms.”
— Charles Sherrington (1938), Man on His Nature (pg. 260)

In his chapter three "Life in Little", he seems to have been the first to dig into the issues and irreconcilabilities with the term life, in the modern general chemical-physical-thermodynamical perspective, speculating on how there is no difference between life and non-life, only in namesake, that the term "life" is an artificial definition; he also discusses the second law of thermodynamics in relation to evolution.

Jean Fernel
Thematically, the thread of Sherrington's the lecture-book is interspliced with the philosophical views of French physician-philosopher Jean Fernel (1497-1558)—noted for introduced the terms "physiology", as the study of the body's function, and also "pathology", the study of the body's disease—as his philosophical contrasted with the older views of Aristotle and the views of modern day. In his opening chapter, Sherrington cites a number of passages from Fernel’s 1548 On the Hidden Causes of Things, a Platonic-style dialogue of sorts between the three fictional friends, Eudoxus, Brutus, and Philiatros. [6]

Fernel | Innate heat and life/death
See also: Animal heat; Combustion theory of animal heat; Vital heat
On the theory of "innate heat", in Fernel's day, in the context of the life/non-life issue, Sherrington quotes the following by Fernel, from his On the Hidden Causes of Things:

Jean Fernal
Sherrington uses the work and theories of French physician-philosopher Jean Fernel (1497-1558) as a springboard for many of the topics discussed in Man and His Nature.
“If there is one attribute which more widely than any other is evident as inherent in life it is warmth. In that we come across a great thing. A great thing like those great things which were found by the ancients. It is the innate heat. A law common to all animal kind, an ordinance of nature, is that they live by innate heat. While they live they are possessed of heat appropriate to them. When dead that heat is extinguished and they are cold. That is plain even to sense; it is heat sensible to man; a touch demonstrates it. It is however not so evident in plants. Yet in them no less than in animals it holds true. Further, the more sentient and active the animal the greater and more liberal the heat it has. If you as a reason, think on the excellence of the sun, prime prince and controller of the world, favoring and forwarding every life that is. By its chastened heat it supports them from without in doing what life does. Now if its heat from without can so cherish, whereas cold checks, life, is there not within living things a heat which cherishes what they do, a heat which even of the same nature as the suns? Did not Aristotle well and truly say, and leave it written for all posterity, that: ‘Heat is the condition of life’?

He defined death as the extinction of heat. Now this heat is innate heat. The innate heat is a heat which can be observed to survive even in the coldness of the decrepitude of age. The coldness of old age dominates, it is true, the material fire which is in the temperament, by the old age cannot, so long as there is life, overcome the innate heat itself. It is in the virtue of this heat that the snake lives, although its temperament is cold. So too mandragora, and the poppy and all of the herbs of the frigid temperament.

Whence it is clear that innate heat is superior to elemental heat. Elemental cold avails against elemental heat, but it avails nothing against this more excellent heat which is the innate heat of living things. Therefore this innate heat is not of the same nature as fire. It comes from a source superior to fire. In defining death, Aristotle, with the intuition of a master, said that: ‘Coldness of death comes not by mere overthrow of the temperament—not by surcharge of elemental cold, but by lapse of innate heat. Innate heat, vital heat, like light has no opposite. Light had not ‘contrary’; darkness is but privation of light. Death is a privation of innate heat, vital heat.’

This heat is not of the commingling of the elements. The body at death demonstrates that. Death occurs and still the body retains the structure and shape in all its parts. We recognize our friend, although his life is not there, and his heat is not there. The innate heat has fled him. It is not therefore traceable to the elements. They still compose the body. Therefore the innate heat—the vital heat—must have its source ‘elsewhere’.”

On Aristotle’s discussions of darkness being the privation of light, cold the lapse of innate heat, etc., here we recall the 2004 "Evil Does not Exist" video rendition of this (misattributed to Albert Einstein), which took the form, it seems of a summary of French philosopher Rene Descartes expansion on Aristotle’s light/darkness discussion; particularly Descartes’ 1637 Discourse on Method (section: What Do Heat and Light of Fire Consist In?), and his 1641 Meditations (primarily the Third), in which he argues that cold is merely the absence of heat, that darkness is the absence or recess of ethereal substance of the heat of fire (or stars), discusses good and evil, and intertwines these in with discussion on the possible existence a Deity. [7] On heat in general, in relation to the above passage, Sherrington humorously states rather cogently: “in physical science no phenomenon perhaps has proved more puzzling, and no conception has had so chequered a career, as that of heat.” In another passage from Fernel’s dialogue:

“The stone selenite holds the image of the moon even to her very phases. The magnet-stone points to the pole star. These are dead things, says Brutus, do living things likewise draw influences from the sky.”

Spontaneous movement = life?
Sherrington, in giving is foray into his attack on the defunctness of the life concept, points out early on in his lecture that the belief in spontaneous movement equals life is deeply ingrained in people:

“Deep down among human intuitions is one that spontaneous movement means life. Our kith and kin among the animals entertain it as well as we, though for them ‘life’ is, of course, an unconceptualized thought. We know from ourselves that the indirect field of sight will see what moves when it fails to see what does not move. Our horse may shy at a blown leaf on the roadway, not at a still one. The frog snaps at a fly that moves, but not at one which is still. The vine-tendril never lives so vividly as when at the cinema its clasping s speeded into visible movement. When the cardboard puppet dances it becomes thinkably alive, and Don Quixote’s irruption at the puppet-theater becomes intelligible. The biologist knows this intuitive inference as native, even to a primitive mind.

Movement accepted as spontaneous implies living. And the motion of the planets seemed to be spontaneous. Their movement told men that they were alive. All stars might be alive, but of them all the planets most so. The other stars were ‘fixed’, that is, relatively to each other did not move.”

In the modern view, we know that "spontaneity" is gauged by free energy, specifically in the spontaneity criterion, and is a rule that scales up and down the molecular evolution table.

Sherrington points out also that "to think of the planets as we think of them today, masses neither alive nor, it would seem, abodes of life", would have saddened Fernel, who, supposedly, was of the four element / spontaneous movement implies life point of view, hence motion of the planets implies life.

Defunct theory of life
See main: Defunct theory of life
Sherrington, in regards to the modern issues at a definition of life, in the modern physical chemistry perspective, was very keen person in his writing, a cogent step above the Aristotle privation theory of life/death, and the Fernel ambivalence dialogue views of life/death. The following statement by Sherrington specifically classifies life in the defunct theory category: [1]

Aristotle noted of life that its lower limit defies demarcation. The living and non-living, he thought, merge one in the other gradually. Today the very distinction between them is convention. That deletes ‘life’ as a scientific category; or, if you will, carries it down to embrace the atom. The vanishing point of life is lost.”

The section following the colon—namely “or, if you will, carries it down to embrace the atom—specifies the alternative to the defunct view, namely soft panbioism or emergence, which in underlying argument holds or rather admits that the hydrogen atoms is alive, which, in the words of Sherrington, is a ‘recital that trips along simple as a fairy tale.’ (Ѻ) Likewise, in other cogent instances, he states:

“To ask the definition of life is to ask a something on which proverbially no satisfactory agreement obtains.”

“A speck of material which is said to ‘live’, while the vast majority of specks of material are said to be lifeless? Has it some particular element of matter in it which those other specks have not? No; that is not the key. The elements of matter—and we are thinking of them now not in Fernel’s sense [four elements] but in that stricter one of the chemistry of today—in the living cell are among the very commonest of those spread broadcast in material which does not ‘live’, in soil, rock, air and water. Perhaps what strikes us most in the list of chemical elements which make up us, is the negative fact that the majority of elements are left out, and all the rarer ones. But in the speck that lives the common elements are differently compounded.”

Chemistry [does] not know the word life.”
T4 bacteriophage virus
A 2013 image of a T4 virus, which reproduces or infects its host (bacteria cells) via stinger-like injection of its DNA, a molecular structure that, as Sherrington says, we "hesitate whether or not to call it ‘living’."

To continue with examples, in the following we see Sherrington begin to employ a thermodynamic system based attempt of a life definition:

“Life is an example of the way in which an energy-system in its give and take with the energy-system around it can continue to maintain itself for a period as a self-centered, so to say, self-balanced unity.”

The issues, here, are two-fold: one that the system-with-in-a-system model is inconsistent with the internal system being autonomous or self-centered, and secondly, although subtle to detect, use of the prefix “self-”, in life definition discussions, tends to amount to code for perpetual motion speak. In any event, he continues:

“Perhaps the most striking feature of it is that it acts as though it ‘desired’ to maintain itself. But we do not say of the spinning of a heavy top which resists being upset that it ‘desires’ to go on spinning. The very constitution of the living system may compel it to increase; thus a self-fermenting protein system, granted its conditions, must increase. The behavior of a living body is an example of this, and we call it ‘living’. The behavior of the atom is an example of this and we do not call it ‘living’. The behavior of those newly discovered so-called ‘viruses’ is an example of this and there is hesitation whether or not to call it ‘living’.”

Indeed, in respect to the virus question, American chemical engineer Linus Pauling, in his General Chemistry (1969), grappled with the same question (see: virus molecule). The key passage to take note of here is the “atom is not alive” statement. This is a huge anchor point in the defunct theory of life position, one that one must pass through over the mind, again and again, to find solidity. In any event, Sherrington continues:

“The difference is one not of ultimate nature but of scheme and degree of complexity. The atoms and sub-atoms are among earth’s commonest. ‘Living’ becomes a name for certain complexes of them, arrangements of which it may be said that they are organized integratively, i.e. to form a solidarity, and individual.”

This last statement is close, but ultimately incorrect. The molecular evolution table (2005) and evolution timeline (2009), show the above logic to be illusional, a false patch, if you will. Sherrington, however, saves face:

“These ‘faculties’, as Fernel has described, of moving, of ingesting, of excreting and secreting, are processes which examination resolves wholly into chemistry and physics. Chemistry and physics finds them not separable from the rest of chemistry and physics. What we call by convention ‘life’ is then chemical-physical. There is indeed no good ground for speaking of these as living, those as not-living.”

This is good stuff indeed. Sherrington continues, in a reference to English physicist Patrick Blackett and his work on the meson (mesotron): [8]

“When Professor Blackett speaks of the mean life of the mesotron particle and the Insurance Office speaks of the mean life of ourselves his particle’s behavior gives him no less right to do so than does ours the Insurance Office.”

Indeed, in modern 21st century times, these very same arguments can be found scattered about the Hmolpedia forums (e.g. thread: “defunct theory of life”, 10 Feb 2011, post: #49), in regards to the half-life of C-14 and the so-called “half-life” of an average human molecule, if the term is to be used as such (see: lifetime). Sherrington continues:

“If a definition has to exclude as well as to include, it mist lean on a logical boundary of what it defines; the term life has no such boundary.”
Rock vs human (new)
Sherrington brings up the age-old "rock vs. human" comparison, as discussed adjacent, in order to prove his point, namely that: "to make ‘life’ a distinction between them is at root to treat them both artificially."

Sherrington then brings up the rock vs. human comparison in a well-honed manner:

“The ‘motion’ of an energy system is its ‘behavior’. Various types of organization of system produce on that basis various types of behavior. A gray rock, said Ruskin, is a good sitter. That is one type of behavior. A darting dragon-fly is another type of behavior. We call the one alive, the other not. But both are fundamentally balances of give and take of motion with their surround. To make ‘life’ a distinction between them is at root to treat them both artificially.”

Other decisive quotes and opinions includes:

“Perhaps it would be a matter of discussion whether to call the earliest ‘living’ systems alive or not.”

Animate from inanimate
In his chapter five on evolution entitled "Earth's Reshuffling", Sherrington gives a very cogent summary of how there is no so-called dividing line or gap between animate and inanimate and that the former is a product of the latter:

“The animate and the inanimate as we have seen are in their ultimate parts alike, and fundamentally so in the principle of their construction. When we systematize, the animate falls unconstrainedly into series with the inanimate. The animate then becomes merely a special case within the more general. Analogously, the chemistry of the whole series of the carbon compounds taken within the chemical system is merely a special case within the more general.”

Non-life to life boundary issue

See main: Unbridgeable gap
Sherrington is fairly keen in attacking the issue of supposed-to-have-occurred transition from non-life to life in the early years of the earth’s evolution/formation. On the platform of the work of American physiologist Lawrence Henderson, who set forth the view that particular physical and chemical conditions in the early phases of the earth may have rendered possible the existence of systems we call ‘living’, Sherrington inherent issues with the premise:

“Now such a transition from lifeless to living is thinkable if it be at root an affair of chemical rearrangement. But as transition from one fundamental category of things to another fundamentally different one is unthinkable. The living and the lifeless studied as energy present no difference that rearrangements of their parts will not account for.”

This pregnant comment about how when the two supposed ‘types’, lifeless and living, are studied from an energy perspective, there is no difference, is a decisive position. In modern times, this translates to the illuminating view that in terms of a free energy perspective, or specifically a Gibbs free energy of formation perspective, there is no conceptual difference, in the formation of one molecule to the next progressing upward on the molecular evolution timeline, say from row 6 to 7 or row 10 to 11 or whatever synthesis stage one is to jocularly suppose to be the first life form, a view according to which the concept of a first life form becomes incoherent and hence a defunct scientific theory (defunct theory of life). Sherrington, with a dialogue use of Cleanthes of David Hume’s Dialogue, continues:

“Perhaps we had left that mysterious transition from non-living to living as too akin to the miraculous to be understandable by as a process. That mysterious passage from ‘lifeless’ to ‘living’—to ‘life’, the indefinable, the inexplicable! Life, we know, can be fed with matter but for us to comprehend that matter’s becoming ‘alive’ to trace it ‘en passage’ from one category of nature to another? What question is there we can put to it about its change as it passes across the boundary from ‘dead’ to ‘alive’? Yes; but suppose, Cleanthes, that boundary to be a figment? The passage then too becomes imaginary. The difficulty becomes an imaginary one. Chemical partial repatterning might then be all, and quite intelligible to the chemist.”

Excellent insight indeed! Here Sherrington defining evolution or increase in size of animate matter formation as but “chemical partial repatterning” is keen foresight, well-ahead of its time. He concludes in the end:

“In the middle ages, and after them with Fernel, as with Aristotle before, there was the difficulty of the animate and the inanimate and finding of the boundary between them. Today’s scheme makes plain why that difficulty was, and dissolves it. There is no boundary.”

Mind from matter
He continues, in the direction that seems to invoke the manner of how mind arises from matter issue:

“But if there be no essential difference between ‘life’ and all the rest, what becomes of the difference between mind and no-mind.”

Here, in modern terms, we take recourse in ABC model of choice as embodied in the retinal molecule “carbon brain” model of mind to explain the so-called mind from matter issue. In other words, at a certain points in the timeline of the nebular hypothesis formation dynamics of the solar system, heat release from the sun, cyclically, causes or rather "forces" various types of the 92 naturally occurring elements of the volume of the earth, particularly elements with three or more bonding valences, e.g. carbon (4-prong), nitrogen (3-prong), possibly silicon, etc., Sherrington continues:

“To answer we may follow this hierarchy of systems and things downward and see at what point mind quits. Unless we can do that who knows that mind has left it? Of ourselves, yes we know we have a mind. And the dragon-fly? Yes, it may have a mind. And, amoeba? It may have, but how are we to know? Then of the grey rock?”

Does the gray rock have a mind indeed! Funny stuff, when one is lacking in human molecular theory. In a latter instance, in his chapter nine "Brain Collects with Psyche", Sherrington states:

“Security of our inference regarding mind fades as traced downwards along the scale of being. Ultimately mind so traced seems to fade to no mind. It becomes so meager that the problem becomes that of trying to prove a negative.”

Sherrington, at one point in his derision into the life theory, gives way to the ambivalent conclusion that:

“The word ‘life’ still remains useful; a convenient, though not exact term.”

This view, however, is incorrect. If “there is no thing endowed with life”, in the famous 1925 words of Serbian-born American electrical engineer Nikola Tesla, then the term is vacuous and without meaning. The friction in the continued usage of the term ‘life’ becomes greatly accentuated when the term is conjoined to thermodynamics, specifically in the labeling attempt at a science called “life thermodynamics” or any of its Greek language camouflaged synonyms: biological thermodynamics, biothermodynamics, or even biochemical thermodynamics, which further blurs the issue. Since the inception of the Hmolpedia (2008) this has been the greatest “labeling” issue, in regards to categorization. The switch from biology (vacuous term) to chnopsology (2012) greatly alleviates this tension.
Charles Serrington window
The Charles Sherrington commemorative stained glass window (1990), in the dining hall of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, depicting one of his own diagrams showing an afferent neuron or specifically: “two excitatory afferents with their field of supraliminal effect in the motoneurone pool of a muscle”, which might give a loose idea of his notion of an "organized complex" or tentatively “life” (a term which he puts to scrutiny), being but an “eddy in a stream of energy”, a stream “destined by the second law of thermodynamics.” [4]

Evolution is an eddy in the second law
The following is a noted section, oft-quoted in later years: [1]

“The living energy-system, in commerce with its surround, tends to increase itself. If we think of it as an eddy in the stream of energy it is an eddy which tends to grow; as part of this growth we have to reckon with its starting other eddies from its own resembling its own. This propensity it is which furnishes opportunity under the factors of evolution for a continual production of modified patterns of eddy. It is as though they progress toward something. But philosophy reflects that the motion for the eddy is in all cases drawn from the stream, and the stream is destined, so the second law of thermodynamics says, irrevocably to cease. The head driving it will, in accordance with the ascertained law of dynamics, run down. A state of static equilibrium will then replace the stream. And yet they will have been evolved. There purpose then was temporary? It would seem so.”

Sherrington elaborated on his further in his lecture/chapter three "Life in Little". In another place, for instance, he states:

“The cell is a dynamic equilibrium. It is so constituted as to maintain itself for a time—a time which is very brief as compared with the persistence of many inanimate things. From and to the world around it takes and gives energy. It is an eddy in a stream of energy. It has the power of throwing off from itself other eddies specifically like itself. In that way, though its personal eddy is brief, its specific eddy is as a species lasts immensely longer. But that eddy has inherent in its tendencies toward change, so that, where we are able to look back far enough, we find great numbers of its specific forms have vanished, and a multitude of modifications taken their places. These too are all on their way to change. It remains at present largely beyond our forecasting.”

This passage brings to mind: bound state, stability, reproduction (power of throwing off from itself other eddies specifically like itself), cell-as-molecule, Heraclitus (“never step in the same river twice”), Charles Darwin (on modifications), and C.G. Darwin (on forecasting). In any event, by 1978, this "eddy view" of chnopsological structures, had been truncated, at least in the mind of Morgan Peck, who states he had been taught Sherrington in college, to the form: “Evolution is an eddy in the second law of thermodynamics.” [2]

Reaction end | Last words
The following, supposedly, Sherrington near-to-end last words:

“For me now the only reality is the human soul.”
— Charles Sherrington (1952), statement made to John Eccles, during “deeply moving discourse”, nine days before his death (reaction end), Feb 24 [10]

Quotes | On
The following are quotes on Sherrington:

Sherrington’s Integrative Action of the Nervous Systems (1904) in neurology holds a position similar to that of Newton’s Principia in physics. Here is the imprint of a scientific genius.”
— FMR Walsh (c.1920) (Ѻ)

Quotes | By
The following are quotes by Sherrington:

Natural science has studied life to the extent of explaining away life as any radically separate category of phenomena. The categories of living and lifeless as regards science disappear; there is no radical scientific difference between living and dead. Time was when to think and to breathe were on an equality as attributes of life. Now, living, so far as breathing, moving, assimilating, growing, reproducing, etc. amount to life, has by natural science been accounted for—some might say, ‘explained’. There is nothing in them which does not fall within the province of science. There are chemistry and physics.”
— Charles Sherrington (c.1938)

“The self is a unity. The continuity of its presence in time, sometimes hardly broken by sleep, its inalienable "interiority" in (sensual) space, its consistency of view-point, the privacy of its experience, combine to give it status as a unique existence. . . . It regards itself as one, others treat it as one. It is addressed as one, by a name to which it answers. The law and the state schedule it as one. It and they identify it with a body which is considered by it and them to belong to it integrally. In short, unchallenged and unargued conviction assumes it to be one. The logic of grammar endorses this by a pronoun in the singular. All its diversity is merged into oneness.”
— Charles Sherrington (1947), “Preface” to The Integrative Action of the Nervous System [11]

1. Sherrington, Charles. (1938). Man on His Nature (chemistry, life, 24+ pgs). Cambridge University Press, 1950.
2. Cohen, Henry C. (1958). Sherrington: Physiologist, Philosopher and Poet (pg. 60). Liverpool University Press.
3. Peck, M. Scott. (1978). The Road Less Traveled: A New Psychology of Love, Traditional Values, and Spiritual Growth (Footnote: pg. 265, 2003 ed.). Touchstone.
4. (a) Edwards, Anthony. (2005). “Caius Stained Glass: Celebrating Calan Scientists”, Michaelmas, Issue 2, pgs. 12-13.
(b) Sherrington stained glass window (image) – Wikipedia.
6. (a) Fernel, Jean. (1548). On the Hidden Causes of Things (De Abditis Rerum Causis). Paris.
(b) Hirai, Hiro. (2011). Medical Humanism and Natural Philosophy: Renaissance Debates on Matter, Life and the Soul (pgs. 47-48). Brill.
7. Evil does not exist!? (2010) – HumanChemistry101, YouTube.
8. (a) Meson – Wikipedia.
(b) Patrick Blackett – Wikipedia.
9. (a) Shepherd, Gordon M. (1988). Neurobiology (pg. 65). Oxford University Press.
(b) Dozier, Rush W. (1992). Codes of Evolution: the Synaptic language Revealing the Secrets of Matter, Life, and Thought (nested evolution, pg. 6; thermodynamic pulse, pg. 198; deck of cards, pg. 208; thermodynamics, 11+ pgs). Crown Publishers Inc.
10. (a) Eccles, John. (1970). Facing Reality: Philosophical Adventures by a Brain Scientist (pg. 174). Springer, 2013.
(b) Popper, Karl R. and Eccles, John C. (1977). The Self and Its Brain (pg. 558). Springer-Verlag.
(c) Strobel, Lee. (2004). The Case for a Creator: a Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence that Points Toward God (pg. 310). Zondervan, 2009.
11. (a) Sherrington, Charles. (1906). The Integrative Action of the Nervous System (preface, pg. xviii) (Ѻ). Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1947.
(b) Musolino, Julien. (2015). The Soul Fallacy: What Science Shows We Gain from Letting Go of Our Soul Beliefs (foreword: Victor Stenger) (pg. 155). Prometheus.

Further reading
● Sherrington, Charles. (1933). The Brain and its Mechanism. Cambridge University Press.
● Sherrington, Charles. (1942). “Lecture on Goethe’s Science” (abs), nature, 150:275-76, Sep 5.
● Sherrington, Charles. (1942). Goethe on Nature and on Science. University Press.
● Sherrington, Charles. (1946). The Endeavour of Jean Fernel. Cambridge University Press.
● Zeman, Adam. (2007). “Sherrington’s Philosophical Writings—a Zest for Life” (Ѻ), Brain, 130(8), Aug 1.

External links
Charles Scott Sherrington – Wikipedia.

TDics icon ns

More pages