On 16 May 2014 15:32, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 5/15/2014 6:06 PM, LizR wrote: > > 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. > > It's all relative. If the alternative is dying of liver cancer it might > still be a good bet. >
If physical continuity is important, these aren't alternatives. -- 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.
