[Neuroscience] Re: why did humans grow a bigger neocortex?
(by bingblat from goaway.com.au)
Wed Jul 25 23:48:42 EST 2007
The problem is beyond me because the data is too scant and I lack
imagination. I have read various papers purporting to model metabolic
processes and sometimes these models are remarkably accurate but only in
particular instances not as a global understanding of any physiological
function. The problem is compounded by the fact that very few studies
address the issue of substrate availability, which to my mind becomes a
determinative factor in situations of high transcriptional activity. Then
there was the recent paper claiming the protein construction is not just
DNA\RNA dependent, that lipid composition of various organelles, and
probably the cell membrane, impact on the final folding processes. The
quality control process for protein generation is quite beautiful yet under
optimal conditions approx 10% of all proteins must be degraded due to
malformation. This is where the whole business of protein tangles etc
becomes very important, a failure of the degradation pathways is probably a
key factor driving protein tangle formation. It is possible to write pages
and pages about it but at the end of it all we just have lots of dangly
bits, no coherent picture of what is going on. That probably won't change in
So despite all the wonderful and painstaking research we are still only just
"Entertained by my own EIMC" <write_to_eimc from ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:46a1636b$0$12853$5a62ac22 from per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> "John H." <bingblat from goaway.com.au> wrote in message
> news:13a0irkf8ae5n8b from corp.supernews.com...
> > "Since the brain is unlike any other structure in the known universe, it
> > seeems reasonable to expect that our understanding of its functioning -
> > it can ever be achieved - will require approaches that are drastically
> > different from the way we understand other physical systems."
> > The Brain: The Last Frontier. Restak, RM, Garden City, NY. Doubleday
> > Now there's synchronicity for you, I just read that not ten minutes ago.
> > Not
> > really happy with Restak's comment but I take his drift. I think it may
> > apply to more than just the brain, it seems to me that physiology in
> > general
> > is loaded with multitudes of mysteries and that our understanding of
> > biological processes en masse requires a cognitive overhaual. So the
> > problem
> > may be much deeper than I care to think about, which means I'm too
> > for the task. I can see the problem but I can find no way of addressing
> > it.
> Hi John,
> Although, to me, you are okey as you are, here is a suggestion:
> Perhaps you can't find it (whatever "it" is, to you) because you are
> in a way that is just a tiny bit wrong, and in places that are just not
> quite the right ones!? %-)
> If it is so, you might be well served by taking several steps back whilst
> surveying (still in your usual science-aligned way) 'the stage' (as if you
> were an assuage seeking aussie sage) in cognitive combination with a
> deliberate (if need be *forced on yourself by your self* ;->)
> application of a tolerance principled (Uncertainty Principle-related)
> This way you might end up (through the method of 'analytical accEPTance')
> an approximately all-knowing (or, in the proximity of an omniscient - but
> not guaranteed to be perfectly agreeable) _personal_
> state of What Is going on.
More information about the Neur-sci