In article <Pine.A41.4.10.10002041536300.133212-
100000 at homer32.u.washington.edu>,
"J. Ricks" <jricks at u.washington.edu> wrote:
> I'm not sure that the two models offered are really that different.
It's
> not necessarily a good idea to anthropomorphize the immune system by
> giving it "intent." It is an evolved system that does what it does.
What
> all can it do and how does it do it, and what can go wrong ?
On anthropomorphising, the established view has more guilt than the new
view.
> The system has evolved to deal with BOTH bugs and with
internal "messes."
That is just the perception that you are missing! Bugs don't
automatically make a mess! Those that don't, don't have their antigenic
signatures fast tracked to aggressive anamnesis. Pathogens DO make a
mess. That is why their antigenic signatures are fast tracked into
aggression. I contend that almost everything we have regarded as a bug
hunting system can be interpreted as a mess (other-than-healthy-self)
seeking system. You might say this is just semantics BUT it does stop
perceptions being driven up blind alleys.
> Let's not forget the idea that the immune system is also part of a
> neuro-endocrine-immune system that works to maintain homeostasis.
All of
> the systems had to evolve together.
Agreed but I want to keep things relatively simple here. My response is
to leave that for others with more knowlegde to tackle.
Jamie
--
Waterside Health Centre, SO45 5WX, UK
Home pages
http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~greenprac/jamie/jamie%20main.htm
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.