Dear Arturo, 


Thank you very much for responding to my post (nobody else did not reacted
to the UCLA finding).

Even more thanks for directing me to the Neuroskeptic blog - the real
discussion about the UCLA finding took place only there. 


You are incorrect stating that the "paper about memory transfer has been
highly criticized". On the contrary, they are embarrassed by the finding and
by the crash it brings to the existing dogmas, but they are busy trying to
get an explanation, (and they cannot do this because they are deprived of
such critical things as a notion of information, and information
representation, and information processing). 


Nevertheless, they recall a similar case "citing evidence that 'naked' RNA
can become encapsulated inside packages called exosomes
<>  and that this could allow
them to enter cells". (I used this evidence to justify the idea of
information transfer among astrocytes and neurons, where information is
reified as a molecular text string).   


Never mind. Again, many thanks for paying attention to important recent
discoveries overlooked in FIS discussions.




Fis mailing list

Reply via email to