Finding limitations in Naturalism

[Michael]

Jesus Christ, fine, transmembrane ionic flux during an action potential is a "current". Now do you have a point to all?

Thank you.

The only point I was trying to make originally is that the mass layout patterns, and the flow of charged particles in the universe mirrors the mass layout patterns of intelligent organisms, specifically the brain cells of living organisms.

 

[Loudmouth]

Baloney. Go back and replay your own video from McGraw Hill. They explained it about as clearly as one could possibly explain it.

I agree, and you still get it wrong. You here one word, current, and then your ears and eyes close. Please, try and learn something.

What is the 'right' direction for charged particles to move?

If the nerve impulse was a current it would be along the body of the axon in the direction of the nerve impulse. It isn't. Instead, the ion flux is at a right angle to the nerve impulse. Therefore, the nerve impulse can not be a current.

*If* that were actually the case, McGraw-Hill and all those WIKI authors would not have called it a current!

You can't even understand the basics of neurophysiology. Don't blame McGraw-Hill for that.

So what? That direction of travel of the charged particles is irrelevant.

That's laughable. It is entirely relevant. The charged particles do not move down the neuron as a current as you claim. If you insulated the neuron all the way down the nerve impulse would not make it. This is because the nerve impulse is not a current. It is a wave of proteins changing their tertiary structure in response to changing ionic strength just as many proteins do.

More denial I see. Not a single one of your references actually agreed with you.

Every single reference agrees with me. You need to do more than a word search for current.

 

[kellhus]

Thank you.

The only point I was trying to make originally is that the mass layout patterns, and the flow of charged particles in the universe mirrors the mass layout patterns of intelligent organisms, specifically the brain cells of living organisms.

No, it doesn't. There is no stellar phenomena that even remotely resemble neuronal activity.

 

[Loudmouth]

Thank you.

The only point I was trying to make originally is that the mass layout patterns, and the flow of charged particles in the universe mirrors the mass layout patterns of intelligent organisms, specifically the brain cells of living organisms.

So bunnies in clouds, then.

 

[Michael]

So bunnies in clouds, then.

No. There are mass layout similarities in spacetime to living brain cells and both structures carry current.

 

[EnemyOfReason]

Then what is Morse code? What is AC current where the electrons wiggle back and forth, with but a slow drift along the wire? What is a relaxation oscillator?

Pulsed-current versus constant-voltage light-emitting electrochemical cells with trifluoromethyl-substituted cationic iridium(iii) complexes - Journal of Materials Chemistry C (RSC Publishing)

Apparently you didn't bother to read it.
Understanding the Transmission of Nerve Impulses - For Dummies

I am not overly sure what sort of argument I have gotten into because this keeps varying. But as I said before a current is a continuous or regular flow of events or energy.

None of what you have described breaks this. You are also assigning more unneeded complexities to what I said because I actually did read the article I gave. My argument goes no further then what the first paragraph stated.

 

[kellhus]

No. There are mass layout similarities in spacetime to living brain cells

Dear God, no there are not. Seriously, I know guys who would literally have wet dreams over something like this and would be screaming to all of us if something like that was ever discovered. It hasn't.

and both structures carry current.

Neurons in the CNS do not conduct electrical current. The only current found in neurons occurs sporadically, during action potentials, when there is ionic flux across a membrane.

 

[Michael]

No, it doesn't. There is no stellar phenomena that even remotely resemble neuronal activity.

SCIENCE ILLUSTRATED - They Look Alike, but There's a Little Matter of Size - NYTimes.com

Apparently I'm not the only one to notice the similarities.

 

[kellhus]

SCIENCE ILLUSTRATED - They Look Alike, but There's a Little Matter of Size - NYTimes.com

Apparently I'm not the only one to notice the similarities.

Oh my God, you seriously think that because two things look vaguely similar, they must work the same?

 

[Michael]

Dear God, no there are not. Seriously, I know guys who would literally have wet dreams over something like this and would be screaming to all of us if something like that was ever discovered. It hasn't.

If I was the first one to notice that similarity, your statements might not seem so silly to me.

I'm headed home now, and I'm not even going into the current issue again with you.

 

[Michael]

Oh my God, you seriously think that because two things look vaguely similar, they must work the same?

I didn't say that, you did. Nobody said they have to 'work the same' except you.

 

[kellhus]

If I was the first one to notice that similarity, your statements might not seem so silly to me.

I'm headed home now, and I'm not even going into the current issue again with you.

You think galactic superclusters function like neurons because you found a simulated image that looks vaguely like a stain of a mouse neuron? Do I really have to say how completely insane that sounds?

 

[Loudmouth]

Apparently I'm not the only one to notice the similarities.

Rasputin in a kitten's ear:

 

[kellhus]

I didn't say that, you did. Nobody said they have to 'work the same' except you.

BS. I said there was no stellar phenomena that resembled neuronal activity, and you posted that picture. You were stating exactly that, or this conversation is so completely over your head you have no idea what you are doing anymore.

 

[Loudmouth]

No. There are mass layout similarities in spacetime to living brain cells and both structures carry current.

Bunnies in clouds also have similar mass layouts as real bunnies, and both structures carry current.

 

[Loudmouth]

Two pigs found in clouds. Yep, definitely real pigs since they look like pigs.

 

[Loudmouth]

Darth Vader found in space. God must be Darth Vader.

 

[Michael]

BS. I said there was no stellar phenomena that resembled neuronal activity, and you posted that picture. You were stating exactly that, or this conversation is so completely over your head you have no idea what you are doing anymore.

In terms of the layout of matter, and in terms of the voltage variations, and the flow of *current* through that material, they are similar. They not only *look* the same, they also have voltage variations between various structures, and currents that connect them altogether. It's not "sort" of like neural activity, a *lot* like neural activity.

Even the sun is electrically interacting with "space", and Birkeland demonstrated it *empirically*, something the mainstream will *never* do with their now falsified solar model.

I'd get into the solar physics aspects with you, but what would be the point? It would go right over your head.

 

[Michael]

You think galactic superclusters function like neurons because you found a simulated image that looks vaguely like a stain of a mouse neuron? Do I really have to say how completely insane that sounds?

Compared to the *insanity* of proposing three hypothetical entities to explain cosmology theory, my beliefs are quite grounded, I assure you.

Do you even have any clue what a Birkeland current is? Psst. Electrical energy in space doesn't typically travel in straight lines either!

 

[Michael]

I agree, and you still get it wrong.

Apparently you can't comprehend what you read because they clearly state the flow of current in the opening paragraph and explain how it works in the rest of the video.

You here one word, current, and then your ears and eyes close. Please, try and learn something.

Apparently you seem to think that electrical energy in plasma typically travels in straight lines or something. I don't see any evidence that you learned anything from that video, and I see direct evidence that you closed your eyes (pure denial) to the information it contained. It clearly spoke in terms of the flow of current, and you completely ignored it, apparently because you think electrical energy in plasma must necessarily travel in a straight line? Even in a Birkeland current, current doesn't travel in straight lines.

If the nerve impulse was a current it would be along the body of the axon in the direction of the nerve impulse.

So what? That's utterly irrelevant! Current in space *rarely* travels in a straight line. It forms Birkeland currents that create those "magnetic slinky" patterns (aka Birkeland currents) in space!

It isn't. Instead, the ion flux is at a right angle to the nerve impulse. Therefore, the nerve impulse can not be a current.

Utterly false. You *assume* that current travels in a straight line. It doesn't do that in plasma and it doesn't do that in brain cells either!

You can't even understand the basics of neurophysiology. Don't blame McGraw-Hill for that.

I don't blame McGraw-Hill for anything. They explained those *currents* quite clearly! Too bad you can't comprehend what you watch.

That's laughable. It is entirely relevant. The charged particles do not move down the neuron as a current as you claim.

Who claimed current ran in straight lines in spacetime? It sure a heck wasn't me! Why would I even *expect*, let alone *require* the brain to carry current in "straight lines"?

Your entire argument is based upon your own strawman argument, specifically that "current" must necessarily run along a straight path. Nobody claims that but you and only you.

Every single reference agrees with me. You need to do more than a word search for current.

The problem is that when I do a word search, "current", "voltage" and charged particles all appear in them. You're just in denial that the term "current" appears in every single one of them!