Try
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",
by
>H. B. Noble, p1, that nerual cells "divide". A PBS _McNeil News Hour_
report
>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
that
>"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
question.
>Perhaps there's "horsepower" enough in-there that "the project" will
require
>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...
but,
>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
and
>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
>>>