Your animosity is missplaced rufio. An exchange of informtion was precisely what I was attempting.
Click on the link I provided and the first result will contain the information you seek.
As it turns out, my childhood intuition, though not given by "God", has been proven.
Here are the links I was trying to direct you to:
http://www.brainlightning.com/regen.html
http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/99/0405/brain.htm
I wouldn't credit the childhood intuition if I were you. We all think things for no reason every once in a while. Just because they sometimes come out true doesn't mean that the process was any more logical. I worked out a rough sketch of a derivative before I took calculus, but I don't have to hubris to claim that I taught myself or mysteriously knew it without learning it.
Ahh, sorry, rosborne, I misread the post slightly.
sozobe wrote:To amend my newly created comment a bit, I don't think that the brain is this big blob of nothing when a baby is born... there is a lot there.
Like instincts? Or maybe Noam Chomsky's Language Acquisition Device (LAD)?
I don't think the brain is a big blob of nothing either, but I do think that it's a lot more versatile and maleable at an early age than it is later, and I think that's due at least in part to the use of particular neural pathways in preference to others.
rufio wrote:I wouldn't credit the childhood intuition if I were you. We all think things for no reason every once in a while. Just because they sometimes come out true doesn't mean that the process was any more logical.
Nowhere did I credit my childhood theory with the subsequent proof that it was correct rufio. Nowhere did I claim it was "any more logical".
Another "slight" misread.
:wink:
Why bring it up then craven? Listening to people brag is tiring.
rufio wrote:Why bring it up then craven? Listening to people brag is tiring.
I brought it up because someone expressed interest in hearing it.
rosborne979 wrote:
And I can't wait to hear the theories of a 12 year old craven
I also addressed it to him, nobody is forcing you to listen to anything.
He didn't ask you 4 times, surely.
Correct, he did not ask me 4 times. He asked me one time.
And this necessitates you to keep repeating yourself in your attempt to seem smart.
No, it (?) doesn't "neccessitate me" (?), nor does it necessitate repetition. Nor does repetition make me "seem smart". :wink:
Now, if I change the wording of that post, will I get attacked for "lying" and "revision"?
Only one way to find out. If you change it and then claim not to have done so you might.
But if I were to reword it, it wouldn't be a change in any meaningful way.
Thanks Craven,
Craven de Kere wrote:rosborne,
The neurogenesis-related theory I had was initially derived from discussions on IQ....I long believed that it changes, even when the axiom that the brain cells do not regenerate was accepted.
I've seen brain studies where a previously unused section of the brain can take on functions which replace those of a damaged section.
Rather than neurons regenerating, or growing anew, couldn't it simply be that previoulsy unused connections are becoming active in reaction to some new requirement?
Craven de Kere wrote:Recently more scientists are believing it, and I hope to see more and more validation of neurogenesis because I think it will be big. I think neurogenesis is a huge key to development and I think neurogenesis is influenced by sensory input.
As far as I know, neural tissue will only regrow under very specific conditions stimulated by non-differentiated cells (stem cells for example).
Once a cell has specialized it may lose its flexibility and be unable to regrow or even repair itself (as with spinal cord injuries).
rosborne979 wrote:
Rather than neurons regenerating, or growing anew, couldn't it simply be that previoulsy unused connections are becoming active in reaction to some new requirement?
Certainly! In fact I believe this occurs with greater frequency than regeneration. What had inituially gotten me thinking about regeneration was whether connections themselves could regenerate.
Quote:As far as I know, neural tissue will only regrow under very specific conditions stimulated by non-differentiated cells (stem cells for example).
I'm not sure about whole tissue regrowth.
Quote:Once a cell has specialized it may lose its flexibility and be unable to regrow or even repair itself (as with spinal cord injuries).
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "regrowth" of a cell. Perhaps we are using "regeneration" differently. I speak of regeneration in terms of a new cell.
Craven de Kere wrote:I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "regrowth" of a cell. Perhaps we are using "regeneration" differently. I speak of regeneration in terms of a new cell.
Sorry, I'm being a bit loose with my terminology. I'm not sure what I meant either... I'll have to re-read what I wrote and try to make sense of it
Sometimes I get carried away with speculation.
Oh, I missed some important stuff, especially Craven's long post. And the mention of Elizabeth Gould. I'll look for that, thanks.
Very interesting. I tend to agree. My general take (I'm happy to be part of a discussion that calls for time, wish I had time to participate properly) is that the mind is infinitely more malleable and adaptable than previously thought, and that while a great deal is there when a child is born, and while enormous amounts of and enormously important development takes place in the early years, it's not like the brain is then set in stone after a certain age, or only degenerates. It is still capable of quite a lot, including growth/ new pathways.
Again, I was 21 when I BEGAN to learn ASL, and am now considered to have achieved native-like fluency -- that is, Deaf people, talking to me, think I have spoken it my whole life. Before that English was the only language I was fluent in, with smatterings of French (nowhere near fluency.)
Craven's childhood musings match quite well with my previously apparently tangential comments about my new learning regarding the subject of Grading and Drainage. There or on some other post I mentioned that I thought new synapses were formed. Synapses are, if I remember, the gaps between neurons, from dendrite ends to other neuron dendrite ends.
I still haven't looked up the recent links posted and look forward to it
