Scientists discover addition of new brain cells in highest brain area

ken collins kckpaulc at aol.comABCXYZ
Thu Oct 21 13:31:43 EST 1999


>Subject: Re: Scientists discover addition of new brain cells in highest brain
>area 
>From: "\"Devil's Advocate\"" removeallbut.fellin.onthisside at one.net.au 
>Date: Thu, 21 October 1999 02:41 AM EDT
>Message-id: <380eb2f4 at pink.one.net.au>
>
>Hi Ken!
>I really appreciated your "ex-stink" :-))) (=multiple mirths)

hi, Peter, glad you caught it. did it just to give you a smile, in the spirit
of your own work... "multiple mirths" ...nice aliteration :-)))

>
>I am not so topologically all-knowing (yet) to be able to refute or concur
>with your assessment of the evolved efficiency of the information-processing
>of brains. (You know, nature, and what it comes up with, is by no means
>always perfect. I am sure you could point to plenty of examples ;-) -- as
>can I.)

yeah, my discussion, in this particular thread, has been overly-simplistic...
it's the darned having to do it with little-snippet words, rather than
chaulk-dust diagramatic play-by-play of the whole shootin' match.

i went for a deep-in-the-night walk, last night, to the baseball diamond where
i'd hit a Major League home run as an 11 year old... all the while, i was
almost passing-oout with the anguish of the realization that 20 years of
'nothingness' have stripped me of what i'd worked so hard to gain... i'd had to
go back and study the Neuroanatomical diagrams.

it was, where i live, a foggy night, to boot :-)

...maide the distance of the Childhood homer seem to go on forever.

>
>Re your integrated view of how our brains process our life-situations (so
>far well enough to still hang around, as a species):
>
>I believe you refer too frequently to your own term for a *not always
>"self-apparently relevant"* bottom-line physics (thermodynamics) principle.

i understand that folks don't understand. it's just that it's big, and, if i
can't win a presentation opportunity, all i can do in little-snippet 'time' is
'insert place-holders'.

different folks understand different stuff, and if all i can do is
little-snippet stuff, then the best use to which i can put such
severely-limited stuff is to 'plant seeds' in this 'mind' and that (as i did in
the 'errant cells' msg i posted a 'minute' ago), in the hope that the 'minds'
will cross-paths, interdisciplinarily, by-and-by.

>
>I wish you don't give up -- but keep on pushing with some clever (pragmatic
>tactical) modification of "style". You and your intellectual effort, your
>talent, and, essentially, your "A0K product"; "is" worth it.

OH! God Bless you and your Huge-Courage, Peter... yours is the Finest Gift i've
received, right in the light of day. Kind Thanks.

there's nothing left for me but to continue until Life goes out of me.

i'm going to try to see a Doctor, today, about the 'thing'. my Beloved Brother
is coming for a visit tomorrow, and i want to be able to tell him what-gives.

interestingly, my home has been broken-into, again... the only thing that i can
discover missing is the envelope on the back of which i wrote the tel. no. of
the Nurse that'd had called me back after my first try at finding out what the
'thing' is.

it was on top of my white-plastic 'filing cabinet', but is no longer there.

interestingly, too, a Brazen 'calling-card' was left... obviously, 'two'
Brazenly.

sorry about having to stick this skunk's-scent 'documentation' in-here.

>
>Friendly yours,
>
>Peter F.

Good-aye, Might, ken



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list