Nervous tissue and cellular control

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

By nervous tissue and cancer, I was not referring to the nervous tissue getting cancer.

Hmmm. So why, then, did you post the following in your opening?

If some of the local nervous tissue dies, certains cells are no longer part of the loop and will become more vulnerable to things like cancer.

... and then also again in this post:

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

The result is they [local nervous tissue] are out of the overall nervous loop and thereby more subject to changes such as cancer.

Is it clearer now that I've parsed your post? You aren't making sense. You're making up new terms without adequately defining them, then contradicting your own statements on top of this.

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

[Speaking of the continuous cell replication of cancer spread...]If the local nervous tissue was present, its higher potential induction would inhibit this membrane change not allowing the process to move forward so fast. ... The cancer cell are induced to stop replicating, allowing the immune system to catch up.

Ummm... what? Please provide citations supporting your claim.

Seriously HB, it's time to put up or shut up. This is a science forum.

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

The nervous cell having a little brain of its own was overstated.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Maybe intelligent capacitance is a better way to describe it.

I'll make different suggestion. Look into sodium/potassium gating and chemoelectric propogation. It's already been studied. Not only are you trying to reinvent the wheel, you're trying to make it octagonal.

[HydrogenBond]

Much has been studied about the brain and nervous systen, but the brain and nervous system is not being exploited when it comes to dealing with cellular differentiation control, disease and sickness. This is the major gap I am talking about. Almost anyone can see the logical connection but it is left unexplored. I am suggesting ways to bridge the gap. Only things like accupucture and maybe faith healing attempt to make use of the brain and nervous potential to heal. These are not considered science, per se, by science, but are nevertheless the state of the art with respect to using the nervous system for healing. This area of the life sciences is very weak.

The main problem exploiting this area, using empirical science, is that it would require a major initiative with upteen dollars. It can also be advanced, in a low budget way, by reasoning some of the preliminary relationships. But the bio-sciences are not rational enough to do this.

If this was physics and one knew three variables (tissues) are needed to explain how something (cells) integrate and work correctly, and someone tried to model it with only two variables, it would not even be considered reality science. Yet the lifesciences, like to be called science even when they ignor a very obvious variable, maybe even the most important. That is why I called it alchemy. It is impossible to see rational relationships in the body when you leave out one out of three variables. The lifescience are like a dirt farmer in a tuxedo, i.e, sophicated looking but not yet comfortable with rational science.

[HydrogenBond]

When I called life science dirt farming I was not trying to be insulting. I was attempting to show the reality of the situation with an analogy. A good dirt farmer can still grow good crops but in very limited quanties. Usually enough to feed his family of peers. But dirt farming is very labor intensive since one farmer can only work a small amount of land. Over the years the seeds and the tools have gotten much better, and the crops have improved, but the overall method has not changed in hundreds of years. If it wasn't for innovations by rational sciences like physics and chemistry, the state of the art would not have gotten anywhere near what it is today. Try to do biology without even a microsope (opitical physics). How about x-rays, NMR, etc. Even filtration, glassware, centrifuges, etc. We would still be dirt farming with sticks.

If we look at the cell. The primary component of all cells is water. This makes up 80-90% of all cells. Water's physical and chemical properties are based on hydrogen bonding. DNA, RNA, and proteins are also based on hydrogen bonding. Every base pair in DNA has 2-3 hydrogen bonds. If we multiply this by the number of base pairs per gene, times the number of genes in the DNA, the hydrogen bonds add up. This doesn't even include all the hydrogen bonds in packing proteins. In proteins, every peptide linkage or every animo acid results in a least one hydrogen bond within the protein. The point I am making, if one adds up all the hydrogen bonds in a cells, it is by far the most abundant secondary bond in the cell, with secondary bonding responsible for the fluid nature of life. Yet, the global integration of hydrogen bonding is left out of cellular analysis. Like the nervous tissue, if one leave out one of the most important variables in the cell, one is stuck at dirt farming by default.

I tried to show how the nervous system and hydrogen bonding (other posts) are integral parts of the body and cells and needs to be taken into consideration. But these variable is left out, because it is not land currently dirt farmed. The land is a little rocky. What is needed are rational tractors that can turn the soil. The problem is, because dirt farming isn't yet fully rational (leaves out very important variables and is therefore stuck at empiricm by default), it doesn't understand how a tractor is suppose to work. A rational tractor is not something you and ten of your friends lift like a hoe to dig a little hole. It is something you ride in and works best in large areas. The purpose is global understanding that allows one to farm large areas without having to be so labor intensive. This frees up dirt farmer for new things that are not possible today. It is time to get off the dirt farm and go to the big city.

[billg]

Only things like accupucture and maybe faith healing attempt to make use of the brain and nervous potential to heal.

Ridiculous. Thousands of drugs act directly on the nervous system to treat disease - take for example beta blockers used in the treatment on angina. That's the state of the art, not "faith healing". I can't believe you brought up faith healing.

The main problem exploiting this area, using empirical science, is that it would require a major initiative with upteen dollars. It can also be advanced, in a low budget way, by reasoning some of the preliminary relationships. But the bio-sciences are not rational enough to do this. 

If this was physics and one knew three variables (tissues) are needed to explain how something (cells) integrate and work correctly, and someone tried to model it with only two variables, it would not even be considered reality science. Yet the lifesciences, like to be called science even when they ignor a very obvious variable, maybe even the most important.

First of all, a knowledge of how tissues work will no tell you how cells work. It's the other way around. Tissues, you see, like muscles and lungs and nervous systems, are made out of cells, not the other way around.

If we imagine you were in fact talking about modeling cells by the component "variables", I'm afraid the number of variables would run much, much higher than three. Ideally one day we will be able to accurately model cellular behaviour by understanding the moleculr interactions, but at the moment it's not that easy. Even proteins can't be modeled in this way at the moment, let alone entire cells. Each protein is a string of amino acids that folds into a particular 3-dimensional shape. Biochemists using the most accurate chemical data and methods to calculate the energy interactions between each amino acid still cannot accurately model the way a protein folds.

Ideally what you ask could be done, but you don't seem to understand the enormous complexity of biological systems.

Finally;

When I called life science dirt farming I was not trying to be insulting.

You are being insulting. You're just saying chemistry and physics (which I assum to be your area of interest) are better than biology. You're the one dirt-farming - you obviously have no concept of the immense complexity of the metropolis that is biology (or biochemistry).


Some biochemists use mathematical models based on the most accurate and comprehensive chemical data to try and take a long string of amino acids,

[somasimple]

I tried to show how the nervous system and hydrogen bonding (other posts) are integral parts of the body and cells and needs to be taken into consideration.

There many researches that take account of this.
Just PubMed and put "ion channel bonding". There is over 20,000 responses.

[HydrogenBond]

The angle I was looking at is analogous to computers and robotics. Changes in robotic output can occur via changes in the coding in the computer. For the body the computer is the brain. The current research leaves the brain coding alone, and tries to pertubate the robot but changing the viscosity in the hydraulic fluids. This works, but alterring the brain coding should do the same thing.