|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/11/2005 1:13:14 PM | quitejohn- that was an excellent post on neurochemistry, but I'm not sure how your corrections of the details affect the underlying argument. Could you elaborate, or were you just correcting? That's fine if you were, facts are important; I just want to know.
"What fascinates me most about the process is how the entire process seems to be based on materials that are known to be influenced by quantum events, yet the process seems so predictable. And this is but a small part of the molecular and even ionic basis of life."
This could be said about all macroscosmic reality. The nexus between the quantum world and the world we experience is a big unknown in science and a fascinating inquiry. How does the mysterious, probabilistic, seemingly holistic world of the quanta manifest the reductionist world we experience? If we understood that issue better we may understand how observation relates to experiment and how consciousness exists at all. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/11/2005 1:49:35 PM |
It is more accurate to say they behave like a particle or a wave depending on observation.
A better explantion, wonkavision, thank you.
___________________________________________
Firstly quietjohn2, you are quite right, I should not have stated my hypothesis that thought is chemical without pointing out it was theory, but I did not state as fact or say that I "know" it to be true.
Not meaning to be rude quietjohn2, but I have already apologised for the GREAVES eror of saying billions when I should have said round about a billion instead, I don't happen to be a specalist in the field you know.
EEGs or Electroencephalography, mesures electrical activity of the brain by recording from electrodes. These electrodes do not pick up an electrical signal but mesure the sypathetic field produced by an elecrtomagnetic field. All electrical exchanges produce an electomagnetic field, electromagnatism is simply the movement of electrons.
Waves in EEGs refer to the freaquency rate of the electromagnetic field. Delta at 4hz, Theta at 4.5, ect. I belive these are the waves that were being discused (but I'm not sure as that was never clarified by the originator).
Also I know that the REACTIONS that produce electrical impulses are Ionic reactions, but the ELECTICAL impulses are Electrons. Ionic is a chemistry term and refers to the state of the outershell of electrons in an atom, ranging from 2-, 1-, 1+, 2+. The reactions that produce an electrical charge in the brain are Ionic bonding reactions. Ionic bonds are ones in which the electrostatic atraction of two opositly charged Ions. When two opositly charged Ions come together, they share the Electrons in thier outer surface to reach a balance of either 2, 4, 8, or 16 electrons. If there are more electrons than this in the combined outer layer of an atom and its bonded partners, then it will shed those electrons to be picked up by other atoms. This is what gives us an electrical charge and the flow of energy and curent, thus any ELECTRICAL activity MUST be Ionic, but not all electromagnetic activitey has to be caused by the Ionic exchange of electrons.
So electrical impulses in the brain are the result of the ionic transfer of sodium, potasium, chloride and calcium (posibly) Ions AND the result of electron migration from Low Ionic values to high Ionic values.
At no point did I ever say that Axons are wires (if I did please correct me.). As for the rest of that information, I learned all that in highschool.
We could proably have a very long an intrestig discusion about the nature of thought, although I don't think it would be appropriate in this forum.
I would like to ask what starts an impule on its journey if not a chemical reaction? Is the hypothesis that a chemical reaction starting a thought and then datat being transfered by further chemical reactions and finaly resulting in the information being stored in the form of a chemical diferntiation, as thought = chemicals. I know that electrical activity is involved, but it is only the proces by which a signal is sent from one chemical to another, it is the chemical makeup that determin the results and not the electical charge.
I think this demenstrates that I was not treading "a wandering path between the credible and the incredible." I may leave out important information from time to time, but unfortunately my brain can not get all the information out in one short and concice paragraph. Belive me, its not intentional.
I have said over and over again in many difrent posts, that I have no problem being corrected and have addmited to my mistakes. Nor do I have a problem with people asking me to clarify something as I know that my ramblings are not always as coherent to others as they are to me. So do not feel sorry for calling me on it, just feel sory for the fact that I felt it was an unwarented personal attack. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/11/2005 1:55:24 PM | Oh I think its also important just to point out to anyone who might get confused....
The chemical synapses release their neurotransmitters continuously and in tiny 'doses' called 'quanta'.
This 'quanta' is not the same as the quanta I was talking about before. They are both scientific terms for extreamly small amounts but the quanta of brain chemistry is not related to the quanta of the quantum world. (well no more so than anything else in the macro world is)
 | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/11/2005 2:01:04 PM | Wonka:
Not neurochemistry - neurophysiology. Neurochemistry would be the study of neurotransmitters and their receptors (with maybe a dash of neurotrophins too). In part, I was trying to demonstrate to Raziel that some of his posts aren't entirely accurate which damages his credibility. That's a shame because he also seems to make good contributions which are thought-provoking and I appreciate. The other part was to demonstrate that neural function seems to cut pretty close to conditions that could be influenced by quantum effects.
As for your last paragraph, I agree entirely. But isn't that a part of what we are talking about here? As far as I understand it, the quantum issues become a problem with individual particles. Group consensus seems to keep the lower probability events at bay. Lol - sounds almost human! - but I'm far from an expert on quantum physics.
Tsur:
Interesting review - thanks! I'm not (consciously!) handwaving about anything - just identifying areas that I know little about. I have no information which would refute a hypothesis connecting quantum effects and evolution, prebiotic life, or other phenomena. If you have that information, I'd be happy to abandon what I suppose may be termed a very casual hypothesis. Until then, I just prefer to keep an open mind.
[Edit Raziel - appreciate your posts - no problem, although I try to point out when I'm taking about things I'm not too sure/knowledgable about] | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/11/2005 2:14:07 PM | Raziel - I double checked your notion of electrons being the only carriers of electricity and I don't seem to be alone in thinking otherwise. The notion seems to be that any charged particle wil suffice. I always thought electric currents were simply movement of charge.
If that weren't the case, wouldn't electrons simply move across the cell membrane and neutralize the potential difference across it? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/11/2005 2:16:13 PM |
[Edit Raziel - appreciate your posts - no problem, although I try to point out when I'm taking about things I'm not too sure/knowledgable about]
I sould probably try to do that more often too, but I belive that there is nothing you can ever be 100% certain of. I even wonder sometimes if A realy is A! :-p (I hope I didn't come off as being hostile,I did take offence but didnt want to respond with hostility cause that never helps and there is also no way of me knowing if you were being nasty or its was just the wording.)
I belive there is much in the functioning of any cell that could be affected by quantum level effects, but there seems to be a copping mechanism which has not yet been explored. We may just be lucky though, and the quantum level efects dont scale up to any kind of detrimental effect in the macro world.
I also belive, that if you go to a purely scientific view of creation, then quantum effects would be entirely necisery for the creation of the key chemicals that make up life and for bringng those chemicals together into the first lifeform. but thats just my hypothesis, i would love to see some resarch on quantum states and thier efects on organics.
 | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/11/2005 2:23:48 PM | No, Raziel, I'm not trying to be offensive - I'd hoped you'd figure that out from me saying I enjoy many of your posts. Keep going. The thread interests me, informs me, and makes me think. And your last post seems to echo my sentiment on the (unknown) relationship between biology and QM.
I hope Tsur doesn't feel offended either. I enjoy those contributions too and feral - and ... ... I could go on a while here! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/11/2005 2:32:35 PM | "some of his posts aren't entirely accurate which damages his credibility"
Fair enough. Still I'll take a reasoned argument with a couple factual errors, so long as they are in the details, over a rambling diatribe of logical fallacies as I often see in this forum. It is a very important point you make regarding the smoothing out of probability with consensus as the pool of data increases, in this case quantum effects, but that alone does not satisfy the disconnect between quantum reality and the reality we sentiently experience. I don't think it adequately explains, for instance, the very different roles that time plays in quantum and macrocosmic physics. As for the chemical nature of the mind, I think a helpful model is to think of the brain as a constantly dynamic interplay of chemical pathways. Thoughts, emotions, notions and memories are****ails (I know the bot is going to bleep that- I'm trying to say "rooster" tails and the bot thinks I'm refering to something phallic) of chemicals, each unique as a fingerprint, and the following distinction is important, at any one moment in time. This is an important factor of memory that relates to areas as diverse as the law. A memory is dynamic. It is never precisely the same throughout your life. Neither is an emotion. They remain the same enough to label and categorize them, but not to quantify, because subtle new connections and associations are made with every passing moment. Because an idea or memory or emotion is not even a single****ail; it is an association of****ails. Levels within levels, and those associations are not entirely rigid. The mind is fluid. That is why it works so effectively and was selected by evolutionary processes. I think when you start thinking of the mind in this sense, you start to see that it satisfies, without the need to resort to metaphysics, the infinitely complex and intractable science of human consciousness. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/11/2005 2:35:16 PM |
Raziel - I double checked your notion of electrons being the only carriers of electricity and I don't seem to be alone in thinking otherwise. The notion seems to be that any charged particle wil suffice. I always thought electric currents were simply movement of charge.
Charge is denoted by the no of electrons in the outer shell of an atom, the flow of charge is the flow of electrons from one outer shell to another.
If that weren't the case, wouldn't electrons simply move across the cell membrane and neutralize the potential difference across it?
I'm not quite sure how this works, but I belive that its about stability. Electrons are stable in a 2- charge and will not flow from one 2- to another despite having a want for more elctrons, but when a 1- or other such charge apears, there is a movement of electrons.
In otherwords the potential difrences are fairly stable and nead a specific series of events to cause them to release or to take up electrons.
(Its starting to get a bit late {10:30} here so please exuse me being confusing.)
I know there are other factors tha come into play, I think that there is something about them always being in flux as well? If I rember my school chemistry properly, no reactin is ever 100% stable. Even when all chemicals apear to have reacted, there is still some flux between them, and this is due to molecular instability. (I know its confusing talking about Ionic compounds being stable and about them being unstable.) Its due to the types of bonding created and the free electrons avaliable.
For example, in specific arangements, carbon atoms can have no free electrons, and form the strongest posible bonds, such as in diamond. But in other arengments, there is one free electron for each carbon atom, and the atoms are joned in a planer layer. This is what gives graphite its unique properties. (for exaple grapite can conduct electric curents in one direction {acros its planer surface} and is ectreamly stong through its planes, but each plane will easily slide off of the next one. {making it great for writing with}).
Electrons also only move from one atom to the next, so if an atom with a free elcton is surounded by atoms that will not take up that chage, the electron will hang aound its parent atom.
I belive all these features (and posibly more) are what prevent cell entropy. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/11/2005 2:49:36 PM | Not sure what you're arguing with, wonka. Hopefully others will do a better job on the quantum issue than I could ever do.
Your model is acceptable - asterisks and all! But it seems about as provable as God. If you can suggest a way to test it (your model, not God), maybe I'll try! If you are right, I wonder if the mechanisms could be applied with logic gates in silicon. Wouldn't that be interesting? Man evolved to build enduring life from silicon and steel? Just a fun extrapolation of your model which I often ponder.
If you think I'm indulging in metaphysics (and I suspect you're not the only one) please point it out to me. Its definitely not my intention and I'd like to at least recognize it in my own thinking.
Edit: Now I gotta go - but I appreciate all of the discussion - especially that which challenges my own ideas ..... thanks everyone. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/11/2005 3:49:25 PM | | I want to respond more, because you broached an interesting point with artificial intelligence. but I'll have to come back later; I'm in the middle of a workout. I just want to quickly point out that, why do I have to be arguing anything? I was just elaborating. And I did not intend to accuse you of indulging in metaphysics. That was just a general statment. Also, my model, although metaphorical in language, is actually derived from science. I think you will find that it is not too different from the contemporary paradigm of neuropsychology and psychobiology. Anyways, I'll try to come back to expand the AI idea- fascinating stuff. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/11/2005 6:23:55 PM | Ah - Wonka my apologies - I misinterpreted your words "I'll take a reasoned argument" to mean you wished to differ, rather than suggesting I should be thankful that the overall content of the posts I criticized were reasonable. No, you weren't arguing!
No offence taken with the metaphysics comment. Tsur seemed to hint I was bordering on it too. If I am, my mind is wandering and I'd appreciate anyone's help in bringing it back to reality - I'm always losing things.
Yes, your model is well rooted in science, but the science has had a hard time moving forward from the position you describe. It's hardly different from the Pribram holographic model introduced about a quarter of a century ago. That's not to criticize you so much as defend my own position that perhaps it's time we started looking for an alternative viewpoint.
Not sure if AI isn't moving off the thread a little. I started a thread on it a while ago but it fizzled - http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts843639.aspx but I won't be offended if someone starts another thread.
Raziel - your comments are fascinating, though perhaps not relevant to this thread. There's a quantum physics and theology thread and a few physics threads and I'd really like your help to clarify the notion of charge movement. I read articles of positron currents and still see a positive ion moving across a membrane as something carrying a positive charge rather than what I currrently see as a 'fudgy' electron movement. And electrons don't make positive charges (unless they change into something else), so there must be something positive that can move as well. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/11/2005 7:56:13 PM | | Due to the intractable complexity it doesn't surprise me that advancement is slow, but the paradigm has still been very successful. Give it time, seriously. It will probably take not only some radical new ideas as you mention, but also new technologies to make significant steps forward, but I still think the paradigm is very sound. It may need to be expanded up, not unlike relativity expanded upon newtonian mechanics, but it's clearly on the right track. Heck you could say the same about quantum physics. In fact figuring out how they relate may be very enlightening for both disciplines. I'll take a look at the AI thread instead of going into great detail. Just let me ask if you've ever read Hofstedter's Godel Escher Bach, or Roger Penrose's The emperor's new mind? Two very different, but well reasoned, takes on artificial intelligence. Penrose's book goes into the relation between quantum physics and the mind as he sees it. It's speculative, but the speculations of one of the world's prominent physicists is certainly worth a read. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/11/2005 8:31:23 PM | I won't argue that. I'm mostly just interested in whether or not it {intelligent design} could be scientific.
Proponents of creationism (and to a lesser extent, intelligent design) start with an absolute idea that there is a divine being who created the universe. Therfor there is no need to use the scientific method. This idea is not a theory, it is an absolute. It belongs in theology, not in science. It really is just that simple.
In the scientific method you don't start with an absolute and then look for evidence to back up the absolute. You start with an observation. This leads to a hypothesis and you test it. There is always the chance it will be proven wrong. The premise of both intelligent design and creationism is not a hypothesis based on an observation. It is an absolute that if accepted requires all evidence to its contrary to be considered heretical. Neither of these things are science.
Intelligent design is a theology (or theological idea) that allows for more tolerance of science than creationism, but it is not, itself, science. It is really that simple. | |
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/11/2005 8:35:40 PM | I feel like I'm in the land of the giants.
What is matter? The scientific defn.(loosely) would be anything that takes up space and has mass.
Ah, but what is matter made up of. matter, form, molecules, atoms, subatomic particals, the quantum field [bosons, fermions, (quarks, leptons,) Hadrons etc.] the building blocks of matter. In a word - Energy. doesn't energy come in waves? when does a wave cease to be a wave? when it becomes a particle. and what causes it to become a particle? Do we know, or will we not hazard a guess. The status quo is happy in its little box. (dogmatic science and religion)
Visualize energy as clay. What molds the clay into matter. into an object? Could not our brains be the hands that mold the clay into reality? Carbuels (and yes, Raziel, I might have the spelling off, but my good man, you are no one to talk. no malice there old bean just a little chiding ;->) Carbuels are within or a part of the neuron walls. lets say a part of the substructure. similar to microtubules that form the exsoskeleton of a cell. Yet within these are proton chains which in short, enfold to the quantum world. (pardon the stunting of this explaination, but I really should be studying, Chemistry test Thurs. Math test Friday)
So what are we made up of? Matter - Energy, (I know, I know, It's not that simple. but, ! we do tend to over complecate things a bit) and what holds that matter in place? What creates the world in which we live? Could all that we don't know about the brain be that which creates the world in which we live? Conscious Intent. The observer. Some might call this God. (LOL, read my postings if you care, no thumper here.) The two major combatents have been science and religion, but as is typical with man throughout history, we tend to argue till we forget the point and miss the point. Science and Spirtiuality are beginning to share a common ground. The quantum world will bridge that. (note I did not mention religion as religion has long ago lost spirituality [I just know someone's gonna jump on this] religion being a construct of a political agenda ment to control the masses.) Our greatest discoveries aren't into the space we see in the midnight sky but rather the space between our ears.
nite all -- off to the books | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/11/2005 8:38:55 PM |
and yes, Raziel, I might have the spelling off, but my good man, you are no one to talk.
I don't seem to remember him mocking your spelling. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/11/2005 8:47:46 PM | | Hey MLR - good to see you back. Oh the spelling thing is trivial. much bigger things afoot on this forum. just a little good natured chiding. hell, I might have misspelled chide - ing ;-> | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/11/2005 8:52:52 PM | | ouch just noticed a mistake. someone in this bunch will be sure to catch it. I need an editor. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/11/2005 9:37:39 PM |
what holds that matter in place?
The bible says that Jesus holds all things together. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/11/2005 11:12:53 PM | Wonka: I don't disagree with your comments on a model of the brain. I'm familiar with Penrose's ideas but haven't really studied his book and haven't read Hofstedter's book, though it looks very interesting .... So many books, so little time !!!!!!!
Sili - I couldn't figure what carbueles were about either. Never heard of them and couldn't find them with a Google search or a dictionary. Maybe you have a link to help us out - it's always nice to back up statements with a source for the information. Found something about carbules in Ramtha sites but they just wanted to sell me stuff.
Hehe - the scientific method. Lemme tell you, you use every trick in the book and then some to figure out new things. Then you write it up just like you followed the scientific party line to the letter (or you don't get it published). Makes a great story, but how many times have you heard the comment that that a lot of new discoveries come from accidental observations? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/11/2005 11:45:41 PM | Hehe - the scientific method.
Yah. Hehe. How silly.
Making a discovery accidentally and figuring out what that discovery means and what its implications are, are two different things.
Let's not scoff at the scientific method. It does have considerable merit. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/12/2005 10:41:49 AM | Quietjohn- I hope you are not entirely serious with that assesment of the scientific method. First they don't use every trick in the book. They use tried and true rational methods developed over centuries. No scientist casts bones for instance to develop a theory. And what do accidental observations leading to new discoveries have to do with anything? Yes, sometimes accidents do lead to new discoveries, but any proposed conjecture, however come upon, either by intuition, accident, study, or the logical result of other theories, is still subject to the rigorous method of proof and peer review as any other in the sciences, so what exactly is your point with that?
I'm also asea with this whole carbueles thing. Could someone please cite their source with that term and/or explain precisely what it is? If the source is Ramtha, though, that's all I need to know. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/12/2005 10:45:04 AM | | silivros- I must confess that I have no idea what you were getting at with your post. I suspect no one else did either, which is why it wasn't responded to. Could you clarify what you are saying and/or asking. I'd like to know what your point was. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/12/2005 12:02:26 PM | Since two of you called me on it ..... I'm not scoffing at the scientific method, just noting (based on experience, biographies and discussions with professional scientists) that its a little romanticized - even for students of science. Ultimately, it depends on your definition. Is String theory a science? .... ID?
Here's a quote from http://arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm#3 discussing the legal arguments debating the scientific validity of ID.
Isaac Newton made a number of predictions about the position of planets that did not materialize. Nevertheless, rather than rejecting the notion of universal gravitation, he refined his auxiliary assumptions (e.g., the assumption that planets are perfectly spherical and influenced only by gravitational force) and left his core theory in place. As Lakatos showed, the explanatory flexibility of Newton's theory in the face of apparently falsifying evidence turned out to be one of its greatest strengths. Such flexibility emphatically did not compromise the scientific status of universal gravitation, as Ruse's definition of science would imply.
Amongst other things, Newton failed to predict the orbit of Mercury (that requires relativity), but his theories were adopted anyway. Probably because they made more sense than alternative theories and took understanding to a new, allbeit incomplete level. The falsification was still there. I'm merely suggesting that there is more to science than sometimes meets the eye. If we ignore that, it may bite us when we're not paying attention. The ID folks are thinking hard about what science is and burying scientific heads in the sand isn't the best response. | |
|
|
| Page 26 of 156
|
12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 |
|
Home
login 
