From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Sat May 31 2003 - 04:39:28 MDT
Damien Broderick wrote:
> At 12:56 AM 5/31/03 -0400, Harvey wrote:
>
> >> Which statements struck you as particularly off the wall?
> >
> >That main quote that "learning itself consists of nothing more than
> >switching genes on and off...." To claim that memorized information
> >switches one's genes off and on is misleading.
>
> Hang on. Isn't that "memoriz*ing* information switches one's genes
> on and off"?
That certainly my non-expert take on it. Neurons (nerve cells) with
dendrites, axons etc are "constantly" changing shape connecting and
reconnecting with each other in relation to intracellular signalling (which
would turn genes on and off). Genes don't *directly* make anything
structural in a cell, structural like a dendrite, rather the structure of
the
cell is altered as a result of interactions from proteins (cytokines,
hormones etc) they cause other particular proteins (the physically
structural components of cells) to be expressed, transported to the
relevant site in the cell and assembled into the structure or made into
an enzyme (a working protein). The whole thing is dynamic not static.
Already memor*ized* information is unlikely to require the same sort
of physical construction of connections - they're already there. Maybe
though, there is some level of maintenance activity required for us to
retain the connections (memories) that are in place as the protein
physical constructs would certainly degrade over time. Perhaps accessing
a memory is stimulation enough to cause some sort of minor maintenance
or reinforcement construction to be done with expressed proteins.
But, hey, I'm getting out of *my* depth here pretty quick and stand
ready to be corrected.
-Brett Paatsch
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 31 2003 - 04:51:31 MDT