On 16 May 2014 13:02, Russell Standish <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:10:20PM +1200, LizR wrote: > > > > I don't think we replace our brain cells, but even if we do, isn't the > fact > > > that they are replaced and the replacements are functionally similar > > > important to who we are? > > > > > > We do, apparently. > > > http://www.theguardian.com/science/neurophilosophy/2012/feb/23/brain-new-cells-adult-neurogenesis > > > > (I know I could do with some new ones ... or do I mean "neurones" ?) > > > > I think that is more about brain repair, than material replacement in > cells, and only involves a few percent of neurons. > > It turns out the carbon atoms in the DNA of neural cells is remarkable > long lived, as chronicled via the radiation spike due to atmospheric > nuclear weapons testing in 50s & 60s. I don't have a cite on hand, > but the result is that your neuronal DNA is on average about two years > younger than your own age. For most other cell types, the average age > is around 7 years, or something like that. > So physical continuity may be important, in which case it's possible "yes doctor" is a bad bet. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
