Re: yes!

On 19/08/2024 7:39 am, john larkin wrote:

On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 13:46:58 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
 

"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:rr34cj99uhg9cqank3amgqnrlhqok9f0m2@4ax.com...

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
>

>
https://www.learningmethods.com/downloads/pdf/james.alcock--the.belief.engine.pdf
>

 There are objective tests for electronic design.
 Does it work?

 >

Does it sell?

These are objective tests for the quality of the circuit that has been produced. They don't say anything about the process that lead to the selection of that particular circuit.
If you can't say why you did something in a particular way - and you never do - you can't claim to have designed it.
Inspired designers may sometimes get things right first time. Most designers rip up any number of first tries at a design before coming up with an approach that can be made to work reasonably well. You don't tell us about your false starts.
Sometimes those those false starts can become practical when the technology moves on - I thought up one scheme in 1976 which didn't become practical until 1993 (when I got my hands on a big-enough cheap programmable logic device) and it shows up in my 1996 milli-degree thermostat paper (section 2.6).
Meas. Sci. Technol. 7 (1996) 1653–1664.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney