- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- EvilPhysicist
EvilPhysicistFollow
Waht regulates the ionization of potassium and sodium atoms that exist throughout my neurons? Is it all merely through reactionary stimulous? If so; from where is the information that dictates said reaction originated. Would it be the Big Bang?
All molecular reactions are fueled by the radiance of my awesomeness.
Fact.
Fact.
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
I'll remember that next time I pass wind.
there we go
there we go
The process known as the "sodium-potassium pump" is regulated largely by the simple gradation of naturally positive and negative ions and the differential between them inside versus the outside of the cell. An action potential offsets the balance, which is then restored through specialized apertures in the membrane of the neuron.
But then again I'm not the evil physicist dude.
But then again I'm not the evil physicist dude.
The wuss left. He pH3@r3d my pR@++71ings.
dammit, I was hoping to get some post farming in
dammit, I was hoping to get some post farming in
"O Lord of the universe, O universal form, I see in Your body many, many arms, bellies, mouths and eyes, expanded everywhere, without limit. I see in You no end, no middle and no beginning."
Even a wet fart is a part of the All.
Edited, Tue Feb 7 22:14:17 2006 by bodhisattva
Even a wet fart is a part of the All.
Edited, Tue Feb 7 22:14:17 2006 by bodhisattva
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Quote:
The process known as the "sodium-potassium pump" is regulated largely by the simple gradation of naturally positive and negative ions and the differential between them inside versus the outside of the cell. An action potential offsets the balance, which is then restored through specialized apertures in the membrane of the neuron.
That's waht I just said! DUHHH I disn't say "ionization of potassium and sodium atoms" to for my health. To clarify the question; WHAT regulates the reslulting action of the "pumping" of those ionized atoms. I understand their method of travel.
The "DUHHH" part indicates the extent of the complexity.
Jawbox the Furtive wrote:
The "DUHHH" part indicates the extent of the complexity.
sorry I made you feel dumb?
No, I meant you could equally ponder why the wind blows. It doesn't get much more complicated than the fact that air will move from high to low pressure. A similar kind of gradient exists at the neuronal level. It's not that complicated.
So... you're saying that the Big Bang causes it?
No, I'm saying I'm trying to fill in for EvilPhysicist so you can get your postcount up to 10k quicker...
Sheesh...
Sheesh...
Oh, ok cool.
Well, the only way you can really compare the causes for fluxations in air pressure and those in neurons would be to compare the sources for the change, which is part of my original question.
NOW, am I mistaken that changes in Air pressure are the result of the EArths orbit and gravity and all of that jazz?
Well can we really say that those things are waht cause us to think?
Well, the only way you can really compare the causes for fluxations in air pressure and those in neurons would be to compare the sources for the change, which is part of my original question.
NOW, am I mistaken that changes in Air pressure are the result of the EArths orbit and gravity and all of that jazz?
Well can we really say that those things are waht cause us to think?
upon further deliberation on the subject of Gravity being the sole cause of all "movement" in the Universe...
well, that's just silly... but even if you attributed Gravity to being the cause of Thought and the Weather.... I would then have to ask you to delve ito the origin of Gravity...
The Big Bang?
well, that's just silly... but even if you attributed Gravity to being the cause of Thought and the Weather.... I would then have to ask you to delve ito the origin of Gravity...
The Big Bang?
Buffyisagoddess the Mundane wrote:
..and by Big Bang, I mean YOUR MOTHER!
Kelvyquayo, Eater of Soles wrote:
even if you attributed Gravity to being the cause of Thought and the Weather.... I would then have to ask you to delve ito the origin of Gravity...
At least my thoughts always gravitate towards sex and that ties the whole thing together neatly.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Kelvyquayo, Eater of Souls wrote:
Waht regulates the ionization of potassium and sodium atoms that exist throughout my neurons? Is it all merely through reactionary stimulous? If so; from where is the information that dictates said reaction originated. Would it be the Big Bang?
Sorry for delay in my response, have been very busy lately. Due to my work and military commitment i have time where i have lots of posting time, and times where i cannot post for several weeks. I beleive Jawbox alreayd gave you the scientific answer:
"The process known as the "sodium-potassium pump" is regulated largely by the simple gradation of naturally positive and negative ions and the differential between them inside versus the outside of the cell. An action potential offsets the balance, which is then restored through specialized apertures in the membrane of the neuron.
But then again I'm not the evil physicist dude"
But let me expand upon what Jaw said. I beleive your true question is where is this complex push-pull reactionary force dictated. As to what causes it, and by what laws is it dictated.
As for the laws it is dictated, the system is controlled specifically through the electrochemical forces of each system. A potential difference is created by the simple atomic structures of each chemical and the basis for work is satisfied. As for what causes this, the stimulus is derived from the recieved chemical input from other axons. This recieved input pushed the chemical potential deifference over causing a chain reaction of pumps to be activated down the axon stem, which then in tern activates the neurtransmitters on the end of it's axom and continues the train of information in the form of cascading pulses along the neural net.
I beleive your question more specifically asks why does this happen, which can be explained by a simple evolution of biological systems. As each biological system adapted to become more efficient, sensors developed to measure input of the physical world. Thes sensors developed out of the simple common elements found in the host biological organism or in the materials it consumed.
If your insisting that is just too complex to happen on its own, then your ignoring the complexity of any creator that would have designed it.
If your asserting that these forces were predeemed to follow "laws" that govern this reactionary force, and that by itself shows higher design, or quantuom actuallization, then again you are misled and simply ignoring your own logical falicies. The reactions of anything are not governed by "LAWS" that MUST be follow or else!! These "laws" are simple observations of the expected reaction in various physical enviornments.
If your simply asking why do things follow the reactions or "laws" we can given them, and what made these "laws", then again your asserting complexity or design where none is needed. If there was a certain amount of energy after the big bang that cooled to form bozons and fermions, based on the reaction between the two types of particles, then thats just the way it happened. Putting a mystical force there, or mighty designer just satisfies your human curiosity without allowing you the basic justice of figuring out for yourself.
At the moment, im a bit dissapointed with the variety of your attacks though. Every post so far has been:
"Insert kelv's misunderstood basic scientific fact here"
"Ask physics guy how this is possible, and subvertly point to the fact that other forces must be at work without backing it up with anything other than my pointless meanderings on self actuallization through quantum stupidity"
Edited, Wed Feb 8 12:51:03 2006 by EvilPhysicist
Quote:
If there was a certain amount of energy after the big bang that cooled to form bozons and fermions, based on the reaction between the two types of particles, then thats just the way it happened. Putting a mystical force there, or mighty designer just satisfies your human curiosity without allowing you the basic justice of figuring out for yourself.
Who said anything mystical?
I was saying Big Bang myself, I was seeing if you agreed with me
SHEEESH
That all movement in the Universe is merely a constant reaction to that original Prime Mover that we call the Big Bang. All other fluctuating patterns that cause "things" to "appear" merely follow the laws of Positive or Negative, they do or don't.
in a nutshell, that all of our thoughs and actions in the universe are still being dictated by the most underlying force/pattern that is The Big Bang. An instant after the Big Bang happened, infinity was set into motion.. and is self sustaining by the intrinsic pattern from therein.. In this sense you could concider "observation" but a result of things and not actually a cause.
That is assuming that time flows in one direction.. and that ther even ARE directions.
Is there a study I missed that showed that the "Big Bang" is actually Time Zero in the Grand Scheme of Reality? Maybe the universe -- and all the matter and forces within it -- have always existed, and it is only a question of how said matter and forces are distributed throughout the endless void.
In either case, there is still nothing fundamentally special about the process of thinking, be it on a behavioral or a neuronal level.
In either case, there is still nothing fundamentally special about the process of thinking, be it on a behavioral or a neuronal level.
Jawbox the Furtive wrote:
Is there a study I missed that showed that the "Big Bang" is actually Time Zero in the Grand Scheme of Reality?
ummm, well according to common science, the Big Bang created Space AND Time... and thus everything withing the universe would be on the same side of an event horizon....
so, yeah, I think you missed that one.
as far as "Thought" goes... think of "Thought" as a conglomeration of Observation and Memory, and then think again how that would corralate with an observer manipulating the potential super-positioning of the fabric of Space-Time.
It's not that complicated.
No such study exists, of course. It was a rhetorical question (to which you bascially responded "DUHHH, yeah!").
Consider the possiblity that the conceptualization of the Big Bang as you described it and as it's popularly known is tainted by the various religious doctrines of creationism that have existed for centuries as explanations of the origins of the Universe. I'm not aware of any compelling evidence to suggest that the universe didn't *always* exist, and the event we term the "Big Bang" may have indeed occurred but not the way (or for the reason) you describe.
But then again, given your proclivity for spiritual and intelligent-design sorts of explanations, your conventional take on the Big Bang is not surprising.
Come on Kelvy! Think outside the box for once!
Consider the possiblity that the conceptualization of the Big Bang as you described it and as it's popularly known is tainted by the various religious doctrines of creationism that have existed for centuries as explanations of the origins of the Universe. I'm not aware of any compelling evidence to suggest that the universe didn't *always* exist, and the event we term the "Big Bang" may have indeed occurred but not the way (or for the reason) you describe.
But then again, given your proclivity for spiritual and intelligent-design sorts of explanations, your conventional take on the Big Bang is not surprising.
Come on Kelvy! Think outside the box for once!
Big Bang is an undefined variable as far as I'm concerned.
Consciousness, be it divine or human, I see as merely collections of interactive fields. So wehn I say "GOD" I am thinking of the entirety of all "conscousness" that has ever existed and will ever exsist in the Universe. You are the one who instantly associates everything with the religious implications of any of it..
Quote:
I'm not aware of any compelling evidence to suggest that the universe didn't *always* exist,
Inflationary Cosmology ,although will proably never prove the Big Bang, it is pretty much accepted as common science.
What are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory?
* First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
* Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
* Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
* Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.
HOWEVER,
none of this takes into account any kind of inkling of an "informational universe", that is, a state of that universe that is not the 3-dimensional physical reality that we all know and love.
1. Is the universe finite or infinite in extent and content?
2. Is it eternal or does it have a beginning?
3. Was it created? If not, how did it get here? If so, how was this creation accomplished and what can we learn about the agent and events of creation?
4. Who or what governs the laws and constants of physics? Are such laws the product of chance or have they been designed? How do they relate to the support and development of life?
5. Is there any knowable existence beyond the known dimensions of the universe?
6. Is the universe running down irreversibly or will it bounce back?
All of these questions already assume an answer.. they assume that waht it is that they seek must come in the form that they have chosen.... (no Gozer cracks)
That is where Quantum Physics comes into play. It is the very essence of non-physical reality which underlies and comprises everything in the shell that we call the physical universe.
Now common arguments for GOD:
1. The cosmological argument: the effect of the universe's existence must have a suitable cause.
2. The teleological argument: the design of the universe implies a purpose or direction behind it.
3. The rational argument: the operation of the universe, according to order and natural law, implies a mind behind it.
4. The ontological argument: man's ideas of God (his God-consciousness) implies a God who imprinted such a consciousness.
5. The moral argument: man's built-in sense of right and wrong can be accounted for only by an innate awareness of a code of law--an awareness implanted by a higher being.
ALL of these arguments are flawed.. as they automatically assume that any "CAUSE" for the creation of the Universe must conform to the standards of our physical reality...
This is why they will not find it.. because they are not looking in the right places. Everything is based off of the logical understanding of the human mind.... which as I have said.. is nothing but another pattern withing the pattern.... None of these arguments for GOD really thing outside the box. That is because they are OLD and the New ideas are only now starting to take shape in the consioucness of the scientific community.
You know what I haven't had in awhile? Big league chew.
Quote:
You know what I haven't had in awhile? Big league chew.
E.T candies, I wonder if we can still find some on Ebay or something. Those things were the sh[b][/b]it.
Recent Visitors: 196
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (196)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- EvilPhysicist
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC