On 5/15/2014 6:06 PM, LizR wrote:
On 16 May 2014 13:02, Russell Standish <[email protected]
<mailto:[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.
It's all relative. If the alternative is dying of liver cancer it might still
be a good bet.
Brent
--
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.
