Re: yes!

On 19/08/2024 1:14 am, john larkin wrote:

On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 15:39:46 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
 

On 18/08/2024 11:16 am, john larkin wrote:

On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 17:54:38 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
>

On 16/08/2024 23:16, john larkin wrote:

On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:01:06 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
>

OTOH I was visiting my tame biochemist friend today and he is interested
in it as he has always suspected that there was a lot more to myelin
sheaths on nerves than they are usually given credit for. A QM mediated
higher transmission efficiency of signals *might* just be plausible.

>
My theory is that the electrical pulses we see in long nerves are just
chemical refreshes, not the data carriers themselves.

>
That isn't any kind of scientific theory - it is too feeble even to be
called a conjecture. Wild imagining is still far too polite. Crazy idea
perhaps?

>
Consider the timing accuracy required to encode all the information
from your foot, given just the obvious electrical nerve pulses.
>
Now consider what happens to the relative pulse timings when you flex
your limbs and body, when sound and shock waves slam your nerves, when
your heart beats.
>
Too much jitter for simple pulse-time encoding.

>
Who would imagine that it was simple? Design is all about getting the
result you want from the hardware you've got, and while our nervous
system isn't designed, only those random mutations which lead to a
tolerably functional system survived natural selection.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ToSEAj2V0s

We all know you are a creationist. I was deliberately sending you up there, and you fell for it.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney