IUBio

Brian Capacity

ken collins kenpc at banet.net
Tue May 25 19:09:09 EST 1999


my work was done in '73-4, and i've still not recovered from the
great groaning within that accompanied my having to so diverge
from the convention. as usual, you've provided an example of the
"rationale" for the "groaning".

"Why"?

see AoK.

no hard feelings, Frank... "i've grown accustomed to your
'smile'" :-)

ken collins

F. Frank LeFever wrote:
> 
> Small note on style or tone: in saying "folks in Neuroscience now
> understand", Ken slyly insinuates his usual conceit, that he knew it
> all (and I do mean ALL) years ago, and only recently has Neuroscience
> caught up with him--in a few small matters (still blind to the major
> TRUTH he so selflessly offers).
> 
> He has it ass-backwards, of course: he knows about glia because
> generations of neuroscientists have done the hard, careful work
> necessary to learn a few things about them, and have published not only
> their findings but also a full description of how they obtained them.
> 
> re Einstein's brain: either Ken is correct about its unusually high
> ratio of glia to neurons, or he and I have both been taken in by the
> same "urban legend" (thanks for your apt respnse, Eugene).
> 
> My own somewhat fanciful speculation (already posted here or in a
> nearby newsgroup a few weeks ago) is that one aspect of glial action
> which might be relevant is the uptake of (excess) glutamate--Einstein's
> abundant glia allowing  perhaps more precise separation of
> glutaminergic impulses, faster "clock", more separate operations within
> a given time, etc.  From there to greater conceptual power is a leap,
> but one might think of it in terms of allowing incorporation of a
> greater array of elements within one "thought" (bounded by
> "psychological refractory periods").
> 
> F. Frank LeFever, Ph.D.
> New York Neuropsychology Group
> 
> In <3748D7E4.456EAB3F at banet.net> ken collins <kenpc at banet.net> writes:
> >
> >Laim wrote:
> >>
> >> Cheers Ken,
> >> Has anyone recently tested his jelly for the 100's of
> >> neuro-transmitters that have revealed themselves recently?
> >
> >i'm unaware with respect to such.
> >
> >> >when Einstein's brain was examined post mortem, it was found that
> >> >was more-densely populated than "normal" with neuralglia cells.
> >> Sorry I was following you up to <"normal" with>,
> >> what does the rest mean in dim-wit terms?
> >
> >"neuralglia" cells have been, conventionally, deemed "not to be
> >involved in active away, within neural activation "states".
> >
> >this conventional supposition is False (which, i believe, folks
> >in Neuroscience now understand. (Einstein's brain happens to be
> >an interestingly-correlated thing.)
> >
> >Cheers, Laim, ken collins
> >
> >[...]



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net