Finding limitations in Naturalism

[kellhus]

Face it, without that movement of charged particles in the brain (aka current), no information would move, and consciousness would not exist.

Yeah, the only problem here is that you and justa don't have the most basic grasp of neurobiology. You see sources talking about current across a cell membrane at nodes of ranvier, at a right angle to the direction of the nerve impulse and ignorantly assume it means there is a current traveling down the length of the nerve like it is some piece of conductive metal.

 

[Loudmouth]

So WIKI is wrong, your own references are wrong, McGraw-Hill is wrong, and every reference that has been cited so far in this tread is "wrong" apparently?

They get it right in parts.

Even what you're calling an 'action potential" is directly related to voltage differences between various chemicals and the movement of charged particles!

Related to, but not the actual thing. A nerve impulse is nothing like a current moving through a copper conductor, and it is nothing like the structures you keep pointing to.

You're quibbling over terminology apparently and ignoring the physics entirely. If not for the fact that you have positively and negatively charged particles moving around,

Actually, you only have potassium and sodium ions moving around, both of which are positive. Even more so, the actual propagation of the nerve impulse relies on diffusion, not current. It also depends on the tertiary structure of proteins, not currents.

 

[Loudmouth]

So say you, although no experts do, funny how that is.

It is what all of the experts say, including an expert in this very thread.

 

[Loudmouth]

If you completely insulated a neuron there would be no nerve impulse. Do you know why?

 

[Michael]

Because you haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about and I've worked with nerve cells in labs and know, from observing them myself, that nerves don't work like you think.

How do you even know what he "thinks" or I "think"? I didn't compare nerve cells to copper wire, you did that! You keep pretending to read minds, yet you can't even come up with a a references related to nerve cells that doesn't involve voltage differences, and charged particle movement, AKA "current". Even the WIKI references (multiple ones) called it "current". In fact, you've not provided any references that suggest it's *not* a current, or it's *not* caused by voltage variations.

Go to college and take a introductory neuro class for God's sake.

It's rather annoying that you've yet to provide an *external* reference that claims no current flows inside of a brain yet, but you insist on belittling others, including WIKI references, images from your own references, and LM's references too. Neither you nor LM has provided a logical scientific rebuttal. Instead you keep handwaving away, and providing nothing to refute the references that have been cited, all of which describe *voltage differences* and *current*!

 

[kellhus]

How do you even know what he "thinks" or I "think"? I didn't compare nerve cells to copper wire, you did that! You keep pretending to read minds

Must be how you guys keep incessantly screeching about electrical currents in myelinated neurons.

It's rather annoying that you've yet to provide an *external* reference that claims no current flows inside of a brain yet

I'm sorry I'm not conforming to your delusions of what is happening in this thread. If you are having hallucinations in which people are claiming currents do not flow at right angles to the direction of an AP across a phospholipid membrane in an ionic flux at Nodes of Ranvier on an axon, you should take a break.

 

[Michael]

It is what all of the experts say, including an expert in this very thread.

It's rather amusing that your 'expert' doesn't even jive with the WIKI references, your reference, or even the image references that he himself suggested.

It's like someone claiming to be an expert on "dark energy" while claiming that dark energy emits and absorbs light, dark energy shows up in a lab, and who disagrees with everything written on the WIKI page that describes dark energy.

 

[kellhus]

It's rather amusing that your 'expert' doesn't even jive with the WIKI references

Pure gold must be sigged.

 

[Michael]

Must be how you guys keep incessantly screeching about electrical currents in myelinated neurons.

Animation: The Nerve Impulse

"A nerve impulse is an electrical current that travels along dentrites or axons due to ions moving through voltage-gated channels in the neuron's plasma membrane"

I'm sorry I'm not conforming to your delusions of what is happening in this thread.

You seem instead to be peddling your own delusions that don't even jive with any external scientific references.

 

[Michael]

Pure gold must be sigged.

Are you *ever* intending to provide *any* external reference that actually agrees with you?

 

[kellhus]

Animation: The Nerve Impulse

"A nerve impulse is an electrical current that travels along dentrites or axons due to ions moving through voltage-gated channels in the neuron's plasma membrane"



You seem instead to be peddling your own delusions that don't even jive with any external scientific references.

What the heck do you want me to do? Write McGaw-Hill an angry email saying I think the language they use in their materials is very inaccurate, confusing and misleading to students? I certainly don't explain it that way, nor does any other teacher in the subject that I know. In fact, it is stressed, repeatedly, that nerves are not wires and action potentials are not electrical currents.

 

[Michael]

What the heck do you want me to do? Write McGaw-Hill an angry email saying I think the language they use in their materials is very inaccurate, confusing and misleading to students? I certainly don't explain it that way, nor does any other teacher in the subject that I know. In fact, it is stressed, repeatedly, that nerves are not wires and action potentials are not electrical currents.

So you say, but apparently no other written expert that you can even cite seems to agree with you.

It really doesn't make a darn bit of difference what terminology you personally use, it doesn't change physics. Moving charged particles are a form of "current'. They generate magnetic fields as they move.

 

[Michael]

FYI, what I'd like you to do is provide a *written* external reference that actually agrees with you.

 

[kellhus]

So you say, but apparently no other written expert that you can even cite seems to agree with you.

It really doesn't make a darn bit of difference what terminology you personally use, it doesn't change physics. Moving charged particles are a form of "current'. They generate magnetic fields as they move.

Action potentials have been explained to you repeatedly. Stop acting willfully ignorant, I know it's just an act on your part.

 

[kellhus]

FYI, what I'd like you to do is provide a *written* external reference that actually agrees with you.

I really don't understand why I should waste my time doing that for you. The wiki article itself is reasonably clear. It's not my fault you can't figure out when it is talking about a local event across a channel protein instead of down a piece of wire.

 

[Michael]

Action potentials have been explained to you repeatedly. Stop acting willfully ignorant, I know it's just an act on your part.

Not me, you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_potential

Action potentials are generated by special types of voltage-gated ion channels embedded in a cell's plasma membrane.[2] These channels are shut when the membrane potential is near the resting potential of the cell, but they rapidly begin to open if the membrane potential increases to a precisely defined threshold value. When the channels open (by detecting the depolarization in transmembrane voltage[2]), they allow an inward flow of sodium ions, which changes the electrochemical gradient, which in turn produces a further rise in the membrane potential. This then causes more channels to open, producing a greater electric current, and so on.

You're the one claiming that all the written reference on the internet are all "wrong' and only you personally understand anything correctly.

 

[kellhus]

Not me, you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_potential

You're the one claiming that all the written reference on the internet are all "wrong' and only you personally understand anything correctly.

A greater electric current ACROSS THE MEMBRANE. I'm not claiming I'm the only one who understands it, I'm just saying you and justa do not.

 

[Michael]

I really don't understand why I should waste my time doing that for you.

Imagine a YEC saying the same thing to you when you asked them to support their claims.

The wiki article itself is reasonably clear.

It's also clear about *electrical current*! Only you seem to be claiming that it's not a current.

It's not my fault you can't figure out when it is talking about a local event across a channel protein instead of down a piece of wire.

Charged particles are moving down the neuron. Every written reference that has been cited calls it a *current*. You're the only one that insists it's not a current and you refuse to back up your claim with any external references that actually agree with you!

 

[Loudmouth]

It's rather amusing that your 'expert' doesn't even jive with the WIKI references, your reference, or even the image references that he himself suggested.

Every reference shows the ion flux at a right angle to the nerve impulse.

It's like someone claiming to be an expert on "dark energy"

The dog and pony show is in the other thread.

 

[Loudmouth]

It really doesn't make a darn bit of difference what terminology you personally use, it doesn't change physics. Moving charged particles are a form of "current'. They generate magnetic fields as they move.

We aren't talking about currents. We are talking about nerve impulses.

If you completely insulated the nerve axon there would be no nerve impulse. Do you know why?