More Info, Please
kkollins at pop3.concentric.net
kkollins at pop3.concentric.net
Sun Nov 1 16:41:41 EST 1998
Thank you for sharing this ref. Seems a good source for a lot of important
stuff. I've taken a note and will try to locate a copy of it. ken collins
> itle [Brain Repair
> Author [Stein, Donald G, Brailowsky, Simon, Will, Bruno
> Publisher [Oxford University Press
> Place Pub [New York
> Date [1995
> Sorry Ken can't give you the page number but I am sure that in this text
> there is reference to studies demonstrating stem cell migration to damaged
> areas of the brain. The story is that somewhere lie reserves of stem cells
> that migrate and then differentiate (not sure about differentation timing)
> to help repair the damaged region. Over and above that it's a good read.
> I could be wrong, which would explain why my memory failed.
> kkollins at pop3.concentric.net wrote in message
> <363A7D39.ED184E1F at pop3.concentric.net>...
> >The _New York Times reported today, "ADULT BRAINS SEEN TO REPLACE CELLS",
> >H. B. Noble, p1, that nerual cells "divide". A PBS _McNeil News Hour_
> >that I watched this evening said it was cell precursors
> >newly-growth-activated. Which is it?
> >Either way, it's a happy day for NDT. When confronted with the doctrine
> >"neurons don't reproduce", but seeing clearly that established behavioral
> >inertia can, in fact, be inverted (AoK, Ap4), which is an awesome feat of
> >reprogramming, I was "stumped". Those who've read AoK have probably
> >realized, long ago, that I resolved this issue by describing a role for
> >neuralglia in "memory", derived in their verified contractile + ion-gating
> >functionality (the contractile stuff redirects the ionic flow). It's all
> >documented. I spent most of my time between 1974 and 1977 working on this
> >one problem, because a solution to it was just necessary.
> >While the neuralglia stuff will remain in the theory (it has to because its
> >existence is verified), if the new results hold up, they "just" make NDT's
> >position stronger, because a newly-participating neural population makes it
> >much-easier to achieve everything that's discussed in AoK. The neuralglia
> >stuff will require only a small adjustment which acknowledges the role of
> >the newly-participating cells. The mathematical "handedness" =can only=
> >still be right in-there, and (prediction) future studies will demonstrate
> >that the triggering factor for the newly-participating cells is none other
> >than TD E/I(up) which, as the new-participation is established, and to the
> >degree that it's established, is transformed into TD E/I(down). Hold me to
> >this. (Of course, there's a whole cascade of correlated dynamics that will
> >be shown to be involved, but they'll all reduce directly to TD
> >E/I-minimization. Hold me to this, "two". (This "cascade"-stuff is already
> >accounted for in NDT. It's a prerequisite of preserving the directedness of
> >the 3-D geometry.))
> >Several other things... hippocampus is phylogenetically relatively-old
> >neural architecture ("Allocortex"). With these results promulgated by the
> >folks in the Swede-Salk study, I encourage folks to look elsewhere within
> >the phylogenetically-newer "areas" of the brain. It's an important
> >Perhaps there's "horsepower" enough in-there that "the project" will
> >less than the "100 years"? I Hope so. :-)
> >One more thing... I wish someone would just say "intermediate-"level"
> >supersystem configuration mechanism" when discussing the hippocampus...
> >here, I "pick nits"... it's just that I'd much rather, at long-last, feel
> >free to use the time I've left to picnic... in the sun somewhere... ants
> >all. K. P. Collins
> >kkollins at pop3.concentric.net wrote:
> >> If anyone here has any info re. the recently-announced observation that
> >> hippocampal neurons reproduce, please share it. What cells? What region?
> >> ken collins
More information about the Neur-sci