# Nervous tissue and cellular control

15 replies to this topic

### #1 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

Creating

• Members
• 2973 posts

Posted 28 August 2006 - 05:00 PM

If one looks at the cells of the human body, there are three basic tissues that are near almost all the cells. There is circulatory tissue, lymphatic tissue and nervous tissue.

Nobody has a problem with circulatory tissue helping cellular control. It is where the blood flows allowing the input of food, oxygen and biochems, and the output of CO2, waste products, and manufactured products from the cells. If one cuts off the blood supply the cell will die.

The lympatic tissue is connected to the immune system. This works in conjunction with the blood supply to remove foreign invaders that can alter or even kill cells. Nobody has a problem with this.

The third tissue is nervous tissue. It is usually not given a role in controlling cells. It may just a well be there for purely decorative purposes, since it is not added to the equation. I suppose if one only uses two out of three variables, you are stuck in the black box by default.

Let's use a little logic to determine the function of nervous tissue with respect to cell control. If it was sensory, it would give a certain signal to the brain based on the local cell environment. If the local environment changes so will the signal up the hierachy of nervous tisse into the brain. Since the brain is both an input and an output device, nervous tissue is probally both input-output and works as part of a neural feedback system. The brain has a nervous feedback image that was induced beginning during fetal development, and it attempts to maintain this evolving image by inducing necesary local and system wide changes. 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.

Nervous tissue is not just sensory and output tissue. It is also smart tissue. Each nervous cell has a little brain on its own. The local nervous tissue has some autonomy with respect to single cell control. On top of this, is a failsafe layering of smart nervous memory hierarchy, which not only allows fail-safe single cellular control, but also control over entire organs, with the brain being the traffic cop running the whole integrated show. A timer in the brain, periocially allows system wide changes to help coordinate such things as puberty, pregnancy, etc. This is not to discount the affect of the DNA, which is another part of the fail-safe control system. But on the other hand, thing like the delayed onset of puberty could be the brain overriding the DNA because extented environmental feedback (beyond the DNA) may require the DNA's timing be delayed.

The question becomes, how is such control possible? The easiest answer is connected to charge potential. The neurons and nervous tissue place alot of positive charge on their outside membranes. In fact, it is the most of any cell in the body. The blood, on the other hand, is slightly alkaline, or slightly negative. This creates a dual potential to all the cells, one to the blood that is lower and the other to the nervous tissue which is higher.

If a cell outer membrane alters potential up or down, it alters the potential to both the blood supply and the nervous tissue. If the blood is made to stay constant in potential, regulated by its own nervous tissue, the local nervous potential one can restore and control the local cell. If it is time to make a new cell, the nervous potential drops for a little while, allowing the cell to enter the cell cycle. (during the cell cycle the membrane potential must drop).

What is sort of slick. Has anyone ever wondered how blood cell know how to find local invaders. The local nervous tissue reacts by increasing the local potential. This increases the local blood potential. To maintain its own differentiation it releases the high potential blood cells locally. This lowers the local blood potential while giving a local innume response. The brain sees the exact spot.

It is far more complicated that this, with biomolecules playing a role in the local potential and maybe even the feedback loop. This doesn't pose a problem, since the entire affect can be averaged into hydrogen bonding potential gradients, since everything dissolved in the local water will create a local average aqueous hydrogen bonding affect that pertubate the ionic gradients.

To summarize, either local nervous tissue is purely decorative or it does what it does best, thinks, senses and transmits. If it thinks, senses and tranmits, it plays a role in helping the cells maintain themselves, so the brain's big picture of the body is maintained. The easiest way is via the ionic potentials that exsit on the surfaces of nervous tissue and neurons.

We need to open the blackbox, take the two know tissues out, add the third nervous tissue, and then throw the blackbox into the garbage. Lets make biology a rational science. I could handle a gray box with logic leading empirical data and not the other way around.

### #2 LJP07

LJP07

Explaining

• Members
• 651 posts

Posted 29 August 2006 - 03:05 AM

The third tissue is nervous tissue. It is usually not given a role in controlling cells.

Let's use a little logic to determine the function of nervous tissue with respect to cell control.

Good Post.

Nervous tissue is composed of two generalised cell types : Neuroglia and Neurons. Where the neurons are specialised to initiate action potentials while the Neuroglia provides numerous supportive functions. Although nervous Tissue is the most complex of them all, it requires more Oxygen and Nutrients than any other body tissue where the neuron conducts fast messages to all parts of the body.

Would it not be a simple function?
Conductions are made every second ( less actually ), and parts of the body which are surrounded by tissue would automatically be put into action, similar to the Immune and Lymphatic Systems. It's obvious that there is a good system between blood cells, blood and Nervous Tissue if it gains the most Oxygen and Nutrients needed, so rather than say function it seems more like working in conjunction because the brain controls all after all.

### #3 somasimple

somasimple

Thinking

• Members
• 58 posts

Posted 29 August 2006 - 08:35 AM

Hi,

The nervous system rules all the others ones.
It rules blood system, immune system and it is the initiator of all endocrines hormones.

### #4 InfiniteNow

InfiniteNow

Suspended

• Members
• 9148 posts

Posted 29 August 2006 - 03:48 PM

The use of the word "tissue" seems a bit out of place when referrring to neuroanatomy. Tissue is most often associated with musculature or Kleenex.

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.

Each nervous cell has a little brain on its own. The local nervous tissue has some autonomy with respect to single cell control.

This doesn't seem accurate either. Each cell is enormously dependent on those around it, and "no cell is an island." I'm concerned that you are launching your ideas off false assumptions, which would ruin the accuracy of your theory.

A timer in the brain, periocially allows system wide changes to help coordinate such things as puberty, pregnancy, etc. This is not to discount the affect of the DNA, which is another part of the fail-safe control system. But on the other hand, thing like the delayed onset of puberty could be the brain overriding the DNA because extented environmental feedback (beyond the DNA) may require the DNA's timing be delayed.

The brain is generated through DNA also... but this too sounds quite off base. If I want to be 10 feet tall, and use lots and lots of mental energy contemplating this, I'll still be limited to the 6 feet tall imposed by my DNA.

Are you referring to... No, never mind. I really don't know.

To summarize, either local nervous tissue is purely decorative or it does what it does best, thinks, senses and transmits. If it thinks, senses and tranmits, it plays a role in helping the cells maintain themselves, so the brain's big picture of the body is maintained. The easiest way is via the ionic potentials that exsit on the surfaces of nervous tissue and neurons.

Well, I do hereby cast my vote that it's not purely decorative.

Also, the easiest way to what?

We need to open the blackbox, take the two know tissues out, add the third nervous tissue, and then throw the blackbox into the garbage. Lets make biology a rational science. I could handle a gray box with logic leading empirical data and not the other way around.

So biology is not a science for you, but to call the entire branch of science irrational is WAY overstating whatever case it is you're trying to make.

### #5 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

Creating

• Members
• 2973 posts

Posted 29 August 2006 - 05:50 PM

By nervous tissue and cancer, I was not referring to the nervous tissue getting cancer. Rather, if local nervous tissue dies then local cells will no longer benefit by the support role of nervous tissue. The result is they are out of the overall nervous loop and thereby more subject to changes such as cancer.

The reason I deduced this was that cancer often involves cells that go into continuous cell replication mode. This continuous cell cycle mode requires the membrane potential lower and stay low. 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. Cancer could still occur due to other factors, but renewed or amplified nervous tissue potential could explain spontaneous remission. The cancer cell are induced to stop replicating, allowing the immune system to catch up.

The nervous cell having a little brain of its own was overstated. Maybe intelligent capacitance is a better way to describe it. It may be something analogous to the way memory in some reflex actions is processed close to the muscles first and does not initially require the brain. The brain gets the signal and then secondary responds.

### #6 somasimple

somasimple

Thinking

• Members
• 58 posts

Posted 29 August 2006 - 10:44 PM

You need perhaps to read something about the marvels of the nervous system.
Here is something for a "dummy"
http://www.emc.maric...ioBookNERV.html

### #7 LJP07

LJP07

Explaining

• Members
• 651 posts

Posted 30 August 2006 - 02:35 AM

You need perhaps to read something about the marvels of the nervous system.
Here is something for a "dummy"
http://www.emc.maric...ioBookNERV.html

That's very basic introduction website Soma

### #8 somasimple

somasimple

Thinking

• Members
• 58 posts

Posted 30 August 2006 - 07:29 AM

Yes,
then continue with a little harder thing =>
neurosciences

### #9 LJP07

LJP07

Explaining

• Members
• 651 posts

Posted 30 August 2006 - 07:37 AM

### #10 somasimple

somasimple

Thinking

• Members
• 58 posts

Posted 30 August 2006 - 07:54 AM

Hi,

You must copy a title and past it in the search box.

Very boring.
Or you could construct a page with the collected links for your own usage.
I have such a page but can't share it on this site (copyright issue).

### #11 InfiniteNow

InfiniteNow

Suspended

• Members
• 9148 posts

Posted 30 August 2006 - 11:01 AM

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:

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.

[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.

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

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

Agreed.

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.

### #12 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

Creating

• Members
• 2973 posts

Posted 30 August 2006 - 06:42 PM

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.

### #13 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

Creating

• Members
• 2973 posts

Posted 31 August 2006 - 04:59 PM

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.

### #14 billg

billg

Thinking

• Members
• 71 posts

Posted 14 September 2006 - 05:38 AM

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,

### #15 somasimple

somasimple

Thinking

• Members
• 58 posts

Posted 14 September 2006 - 11:04 AM

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.

### #16 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

Creating

• Members
• 2973 posts

Posted 17 September 2006 - 03:04 PM

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.