Circadian cycles and the pineal gland:

Kenneth Collins k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%
Sun Mar 2 21:41:23 EST 2003


After posting this, I realized that folks'd probably think, "Geese,
what a dork!" :-]

I wasn't trying to say, "Hey, look at me."

I was trying to convey how easy it is to theorize in Neuroscience.
Really, all it takes is the will to do it. That, and the wherewithal
to do it.

The Neuroscience stacks are a Treasure trove. And theorization is
inherently fun to do. But, since, doing it isn't in formal curicula
in Neuroscience, theorization [cross-correlation and integration of
experimental results] is being left undone.

In what seemed to be a 'self-agrandizing' msg, I was trying to
encourage folks to get involved in Neuroscience theorization.

But the 'self-agrandizing' stuff is probably all that came-across,
eh?

"Damned if I do and damned if I don't."

"Oh well."

But Neuroscience theorization should have it's place with courses in
every Neuroscience curriculum. There are huge benefits to it, not the
least of which is that it facilitates cross-specialization
'fertilization' within Neuroscience - get's folks talking about stuff
that they'd not, otherwise know about - lets folks understand how
their work dovedails with the work of others, and how they can both
give and receive.

Neuroscience 'wins' when folks get together to see each others' work
throu one anothers' ongoing foci and understanding voids.

Formal courses in Neuroscience Theory can bring all of this about.

If there's any interest in setting up a course series in Neuroscience
Theory - anywhere - I'd like to consult - offer what I've learned
'epistomological'-wise.

Too much to hope for?

ken

"Kenneth Collins" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote in
message
news:9L48a.5914$Uy4.494754 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| If I could afford to, I'd pursue my hypothesis, stated in my prior
| two posts in this thread, by looking up, and reading:
|
| http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=Display&DB=PubMed
|
| Neuroendocrinol Lett 2002 Oct-Dec;23(5-6):442 Related Articles,
Links
|
| BOOK REVIEW: Csilla Ruzsas and Bela Mess "Maturation and Aging of
| Neuroendocrine Functions. The role of monoaminergic neurons and of
| the pineal gland".
|
| Dorner G.
|
| Institute of Experimental Endocrinology, Humboldt University
Medical
| School (Charite), Berlin, Germany.
|
| Publication Types:
| News
|
| PMID: 12500168 [PubMed - in process]
|
| I found, on PubMed, a lot of other "good-starting-olace" refs with
| respect to the hypothesis.
|
| My old method was to look-up, read them, read selected refs in
their
| bibliographies, continuously 'whittling'.
|
| Guess, these days, I'm either 'too old' or too poor for my old
method
| :-]
|
| ken
|
| "Kenneth Collins" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net_NOSPAM> wrote in
| message
| news:OH47a.1356$Uy4.124938 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| | Hi John.
| |
| | "John H." <johnh at faraway.xxx> wrote in message
| | news:lm47a.416$0k1.13060 at nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
| | | Thanks Ken, but I found what I needed. Apparently no direct
| | connection to
| | | pineal but rather via SCN then to cervical ganglia then to
| pineal.
| | Talk
| | | about roundabout way!
| |
| | Yeah. 'Tortured' routes are one of the hallmarks I look for when
| | hypothesizing about the sort of functional switch-over
| [redirection]
| | that I discussed in my prior reply. There's an 'incompleteness'
in
| | their relative mapping-elegance that correlates with phylogenetic
| | 'work-in-progress' - 'sticks out' like a 'sore thumb'.
| |
| | Cheers, John, ken
| |
| |
|
|





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list