The Speed of Thought

[The Starmaker]

The Speed of Thought


I don't think you girls have even begun to measure it correctly.

[Ned Latham]

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> The Speed of Thought

Depends on the indiviual. Most people should be able to manage 80 wpm
or more.

> I don't think

We know.

Ned

[The Starmaker]

The speed of light is not about how fast it can type...but how fast it can move.


Once you understand 'thought' as information... then you can measure how fast thought can move.


Let me give you a simple example..

Your great great grandmother puts her thoughts in a letter and give it to a letter carrier, the pony express.

A 'letter carrier' is a person who carries a letter containg your great great grandmother thoughts , jumps on a pony and delivers it.


What is the speed of thought? ....today, might be a little faster.

How long did it take 'this thought' to reach You? And add all the different modes of..transportation.


Also add galaxies that are moving faster than the speed of light which also contain...information.


What is The Speed of Thought?


I think it's fair to say it's a little more than..."80 wpm".

[Sjouke Burry]

Nerve conduction velocity - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerve_conduction_velocity
Nerve impulses are extremely slow compared to the speed of electrical
impulses which are on the order of 50–99% of the speed of light,
however, very fast compared to the speed of blood flow, with some
myelinated neurons conducting at speeds up to 120 m/s (432 km/h or 275 mph).

[Ned Latham]

The Starmaker wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Speed of Thought
> >
> > Depends on the indiviual. Most people should be able to manage
> > 80 wpm or more.
> >
> > > I don't think
> >
> > We know.
>

> The speed of light is not about how fast it can type...

Neither is what I said. wpm is how fast *thought* occurs.

> but how fast it can move.

If you mean thought moves from the thinker's head to some other
place, you'd best state your hypothesis clearly, then show cause
to acceot it.

> Once you understand 'thought' as information... then you can
> measure how fast thought can move.

No. Once you understand that you have to state a clear hypothesis
and show cause to accept it, then you can start to discuss it.

> Let me give you a simple example..
>
> Your great great grandmother puts her thoughts in a letter and

Wrong. No-one has ever done that.

----further baseless speculation snipped----

Ned

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <58fc9ce1$0$1811$e4fe...@textnews.kpn.nl>,

That was what I thought when I first saw this Subject line. I
actually knew that number at some point, 'cause I asked my boss
the scientist and he told me, and I put it into _A Point of
Honor,_ at the point where the programmer tells the swordswoman
that, as you say, nerve impulses travel more slowly than
electrical impulses, so that (contrary to popular belief) she
*can't* tell whether she's in a VR on a local machine or a remote
one.

Thank you for providing the data again, so I didn't have to get
the book out and try to find it.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

[J. Clarke]

In article <oov91...@kithrup.com>, djh...@kithrup.com says...

> >impulses which are on the order of 50?99% of the speed of light,

> >however, very fast compared to the speed of blood flow, with some
> >myelinated neurons conducting at speeds up to 120 m/s (432 km/h or 275 mph).
>
> That was what I thought when I first saw this Subject line. I
> actually knew that number at some point, 'cause I asked my boss
> the scientist and he told me, and I put it into _A Point of
> Honor,_ at the point where the programmer tells the swordswoman
> that, as you say, nerve impulses travel more slowly than
> electrical impulses, so that (contrary to popular belief) she
> *can't* tell whether she's in a VR on a local machine or a remote
> one.

That would depend though on how remote "remote" is. Across town, it would
be hard to tell. Lag from NY to LA over landline is about the same as the
interval between movie frames--some people can see that. Lag from NY to
Melbourne would be more like a tenth of second--that's perceptible for most
people. Put in a satellite link and it's enough to be annoying in
telephone conversations.

[Greg Goss]

Sjouke Burry <burrynu...@ppllaanneett.nnll> wrote:


>> I think it's fair to say it's a little more than..."80 wpm".
>>
>Nerve conduction velocity - Wikipedia
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerve_conduction_velocity
>Nerve impulses are extremely slow compared to the speed of electrical
>impulses which are on the order of 50–99% of the speed of light,
>however, very fast compared to the speed of blood flow, with some
>myelinated neurons conducting at speeds up to 120 m/s (432 km/h or 275 mph).

There are some issues with running giraffes. Apparently the decision
on where to place each foot has to be made some astonishingly long
time before the foot actually goes down.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Cryptoengineer]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
news:em427q...@mid.individual.net:

This is an issue for humans too. From the relevant XKCD 'What if':

https://what-if.xkcd.com/44/

"Throwing is hard. In order to deliver a baseball to a batter, a pitcher
has to release the ball at exactly the right point in the throw. A timing
error of half a millisecond in either direction is enough to cause the
ball to miss the strike zone.[5]

To put that in perspective, it takes about five milliseconds for the
fastest nerve impulse to travel the length of the arm.[6] That means that
when your arm is still rotating toward the correct position, the signal
to release the ball is already at your wrist. In terms of timing, this is
like a drummer dropping a drumstick from the 10th story and hitting a
drum on the ground on the correct beat."

[This is in the context of noting that the human abliity throw things
hard and accurately is unparalleled in the animal kingdom.]

pt

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <em427q...@mid.individual.net>,

Perhaps the decision is made somewhere in the spinal column,
rather than in the brain? Like the spinal reflex that makes one
jerk her hand away from a hot iron before her brain notices it.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <MPG.33668d30e...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Well, the distance in the specific context is from Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, to San Jose, California. But the story is set
somewhere-in-the-moderately-near-future (Florida is being
evacuated because of sea level rise, hydrocarbon-fueled vehicles
are rare antiques, and full-sensory VR is available at a highish
price), so maybe their communication speeds have improved. Note
that I am not an EECS major, but my husband is. Or was, since
he's retired.

[The Starmaker]

They say the universe is...mathematical, isn't math...thought?

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <XnsA760AA24A6...@216.166.97.131>,

Is it really? I've heard some wicked things about the throwing
abilities of some of our primate relatives. :)

[Ned Latham]

> They say the universe is...mathematical, isn't math...thought?

Nope. It's a result of thought. Similarly, but not the same, great
great grandma's letter is a result of action motivated by thought.

Ned

[hamis...@gmail.com]

They're shit throwers, they don't have great precision, more like a volley of muskets than precision aiming.

[Cryptoengineer]

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
news:oovqL...@kithrup.com:

Their aim and power suck. While some animals can spit accurately
(archerfish, some cobras), nothing beside humans can pick up a
rock and throw it to kill or disable a prey animal.

BTW, Munroe's pitcher description is a slight overstatement;
the muscles which control the fingers are in the forearm. His
point remains, however.

pt

[J. Clarke]

In article <oovF8...@kithrup.com>, djh...@kithrup.com says...

They would have to discover hyperspace or some such to improve the
communication speeds. Light is fast, it is not instantaneous.

[Butch Malahide]

On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 1:37:13 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Speed of Thought
>
>
> I don't think you girls have even begun to measure it correctly.

According to Juliet Capulet the speed of thought is 10c.

Love's heralds should be thoughts,
Which ten times faster glide than the sun's beams

[The Starmaker]

Information...'wishes' to be free.

The thought action is to free itself, by any means necessary...


by any mode of transportation, whether it's a pony, a telephone..pass
the speed of light.

[The Starmaker]

But maybe I went a little to fast for yous with a pony express...i
shoulda started with...sending thoughts with smoke signals.

[Ned Latham]

> > > > They say the universe is...mathematical, isn't math...thought?
> > >
> > > Nope. It's a result of thought. Similarly, but not the same, great
> > > great grandma's letter is a result of action motivated by thought.
> >

> > Information...'wishes' to be free.

Rubbish. Information does not wish.

> But maybe I went a little to fast for yous with a pony express...i

Nah. You went a little lunatic.

[Sylvia Else]

On 23/04/2017 4:37 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Speed of Thought
>
>
> I don't think you girls have even begun to measure it correctly.
>

I don't think you've even begun to define it correctly.

Sylvia.

[Poutnik]

Dne 24/04/2017 v 08:55 Sylvia Else napsal(a):

Less the people know,
the more they think women must be even worse in that.

--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

[SteveGG]

OK, so for galaxy sized brains ( God's ? ), thinking must be extremely
slow, since it takes hundreds of thousands of years for just one trip
from one side of the brain to the other !

[The Starmaker]

You want definitions, you get out your dictionary.


Simply put, 'thought' traveling.. is not confined to neurons, telephone wires or satelites....


or smoke signals.

Or your local post office...



neurons, telephone wires and satelites are all carriers of...thought.


I think it's fair to say Thought travels faster than the speed of light simply because
information wishes to be free and not confined to any fixed numbers or carriers.


You people simply haven't even begun to measure it yet...yous too busy Marching for money.


Guys like me have to do your Science for you...

we are all that is left.

[The Starmaker]

You Marching Scientist need a representative like Jerry Lewis...


Look at me I'm walking
Look at me I'm talking
Me who never walked or talked before
Look at me I'm thinking
I'm marching and I'm protesting
Thank you stupid people forever more

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

SteveGG amok-crossposted across 4 newsgroups without Followup-To:

> OK, so for galaxy sized brains ( God's ? ), thinking must be extremely
> slow, since it takes hundreds of thousands of years for just one trip
> from one side of the brain to the other !

This is strong indication that there no such _gods_ :)

F'up2 rec.arts.sf.written

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[Sylvia Else]

On 25/04/2017 2:42 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>> On 23/04/2017 4:37 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> The Speed of Thought
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think you girls have even begun to measure it correctly.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think you've even begun to define it correctly.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
>
> You want definitions, you get out your dictionary.
>
>
> Simply put, 'thought' traveling.. is not confined to neurons,
> telephone wires or satelites....
>
>
> or smoke signals.
>
> Or your local post office...
>
>
>
> neurons, telephone wires and satelites are all carriers
> of...thought.
>
>
> I think it's fair to say Thought travels faster than the speed of
> light simply because information wishes to be free and not confined
> to any fixed numbers or carriers.

It's not very useful to define the speed of thought as being the speed
at which a notion can be conveyed by any means whatsoever. For long
distances, the maximum speed approaches that of light because the time
taken by processes at either end becomes negligible compared with the
time spent travelling at the speed of light.

Sylvia.

[The Starmaker]

Thought has no connection to the speed of light. Consider it...a "spooky
action at a distance".

[Sylvia Else]

You have no evidence of that.

Sylvia.

[benj]

You need to think about this a bit more, sylvia. While obviously the
transmission speed of "thoughts" in organism is slow as determined by
action potential timing and other factors. But that does not consider
the OTHER question which would be given an ESP "remote viewing" is the
speed of transmission of information limited by the speed of light.
There are a number of indications and reports that might seem to
indicate it is not, but there are additional problems in that there
seems to be a certain looseness to time which could mean that
transmissions are at c but you are sensing the future so there is the
appearance of FTL transmissions. This is real science thought unlike all
the religious atheist clowns here who are all convinced that thoughts
occur ONLY within the brain cells. Feh.

[Ned Latham]

benj wrote:

----snip----

> You need to think about this a bit more, sylvia. While obviously the
> transmission speed of "thoughts" in organism is slow as determined by
> action potential timing and other factors. But that does not consider
> the OTHER question which would be given an ESP "remote viewing" is the
> speed of transmission of information limited by the speed of light.
> There are a number of indications and reports that might seem to
> indicate it is not, but there are additional problems in that there
> seems to be a certain looseness to time which could mean that
> transmissions are at c but you are sensing the future so there is the
> appearance of FTL transmissions. This is real science thought unlike all
> the religious atheist clowns here who are all convinced that thoughts
> occur ONLY within the brain cells. Feh.

Rubbish.

Thought is a function of Mind. If you wish to assert that Mind can
exist apart from Brain, postulate it explicitly, and show cause to
accept your postulate.

Note too that Eibstein et al notwithstanding, time is a noumewnon,
not a phenomenon; it is entirely in the mind of man.

And the speed of thought is limited by the intelligence and skill
of the thinker; the only valid measures are the "words per minute"
type of measure.

[benj]

On 4/25/2017 5:53 PM, Ned Latham wrote:
> benj wrote:
>
> ----snip----
>
>> You need to think about this a bit more, sylvia. While obviously the
>> transmission speed of "thoughts" in organism is slow as determined by
>> action potential timing and other factors. But that does not consider
>> the OTHER question which would be given an ESP "remote viewing" is the
>> speed of transmission of information limited by the speed of light.
>> There are a number of indications and reports that might seem to
>> indicate it is not, but there are additional problems in that there
>> seems to be a certain looseness to time which could mean that
>> transmissions are at c but you are sensing the future so there is the
>> appearance of FTL transmissions. This is real science thought unlike all
>> the religious atheist clowns here who are all convinced that thoughts
>> occur ONLY within the brain cells. Feh.
>
> Rubbish.

Obvious science jargon.

> Thought is a function of Mind. If you wish to assert that Mind can
> exist apart from Brain, postulate it explicitly, and show cause to
> accept your postulate.

I postulate it. Persistence of consciousness.

> Note too that Eibstein et al notwithstanding, time is a noumewnon,
> not a phenomenon; it is entirely in the mind of man.

And the way you know this is? You need far more exacting defintitions if
you plan to go this philosophical route. I don't because we are talking
science not philosophy.

> And the speed of thought is limited by the intelligence and skill
> of the thinker; the only valid measures are the "words per minute"
> type of measure.

That is the rate of thought not speed of thought. And of course that is
linked to the velocity of consciousness which is variable. Right?

[Ned Latham]

benj wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > benj wrote:
> >
> > ----snip----
> >
> > > You need to think about this a bit more, sylvia. While obviously the
> > > transmission speed of "thoughts" in organism is slow as determined by
> > > action potential timing and other factors. But that does not consider
> > > the OTHER question which would be given an ESP "remote viewing" is the
> > > speed of transmission of information limited by the speed of light.
> > > There are a number of indications and reports that might seem to
> > > indicate it is not, but there are additional problems in that there
> > > seems to be a certain looseness to time which could mean that
> > > transmissions are at c but you are sensing the future so there is the
> > > appearance of FTL transmissions. This is real science thought unlike all
> > > the religious atheist clowns here who are all convinced that thoughts
> > > occur ONLY within the brain cells. Feh.
> >
> > Rubbish.
>
> Obvious science jargon.

It translates into the English term "rubbish".

> > Thought is a function of Mind. If you wish to assert that Mind can
> > exist apart from Brain, postulate it explicitly, and show cause to
> > accept your postulate.
>
> I postulate it. Persistence of consciousness.

You have failed to show cause. There is no evidence anywhere of
consciousness outside the living brain, let alone "persistence"
of consciousness.

> > Note too that Einstein et al notwithstanding, time is a noumewnon,

> > not a phenomenon; it is entirely in the mind of man.
>
> And the way you know this is?

No-one has ever detected a lump of time. (And no-one ever will.)

The reason for that is that its a noumenon, like Number.
It has no substance, like Number. It is entirely in the
mind of man, like Number.

> You need far more exacting defintitions
> if you plan to go this philosophical route.

Don't be ridiculous. If you accept noumenal Number as a scientific
concept, you have no basis for rejecting the same status wrt Time.
If you don't, you're a loon.

> I don't because we are talking science not philosophy.

You're not.

> > And the speed of thought is limited by the intelligence and skill
> > of the thinker; the only valid measures are the "words per minute"
> > type of measure.
>
> That is the rate of thought not speed of thought.

You're weaselling. "Rate" and "speed" are synonymous.

> And of course that is linked to the velocity of consciousness

If you wush to assert that consciousness moves, postulate it

explicitly, and show cause to accept your postulate.

Ned.

[Peter Trei]

On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 7:40:02 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
> On 4/25/2017 5:53 PM, Ned Latham wrote:
> > benj wrote:
> >
> > ----snip----
> >
> >> You need to think about this a bit more, sylvia. While obviously the
> >> transmission speed of "thoughts" in organism is slow as determined by
> >> action potential timing and other factors. But that does not consider
> >> the OTHER question which would be given an ESP "remote viewing" is the
> >> speed of transmission of information limited by the speed of light.
> >> There are a number of indications and reports that might seem to
> >> indicate it is not, but there are additional problems in that there
> >> seems to be a certain looseness to time which could mean that
> >> transmissions are at c but you are sensing the future so there is the
> >> appearance of FTL transmissions. This is real science thought unlike all
> >> the religious atheist clowns here who are all convinced that thoughts
> >> occur ONLY within the brain cells. Feh.
> >
> > Rubbish.
>
> Obvious science jargon.

The problem, benj, is that you're postulating magical phenomena which don't
have the faintest basis in observable evidence.

You're the guy on the left here (SFW):
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Rv7SO0CIQpc/USCqaoeRASI/AAAAAAAABpI/JiqfiIc8Ok8/w320/then_a_miracle_occurs.jpg

We're using 'science jargon' because we're trying to discuss this in a
science context - one based in observable reality. You want to bring in
ghosts and woo-woo.

pt

[benj]

Ah, I forgot to take into account your "superpowers" that allow you to
check the entire universe for evidence. Obviously if you refuse to look
you never see any. That is science.

>>> Note too that Einstein et al notwithstanding, time is a noumewnon,
>>> not a phenomenon; it is entirely in the mind of man.
>>
>> And the way you know this is?
>
> No-one has ever detected a lump of time. (And no-one ever will.)

The definition does not say time is quantized, it says it exists outside
of sense. This is obviously false as time is clearly observed and sensed
by everyone. Kant isn't science. You just want to babble on with fantasies.

> The reason for that is that its a noumenon, like Number.
> It has no substance, like Number. It is entirely in the
> mind of man, like Number.

True for number. Numbers (and all math) are pure fantasy. However, that
does not mean that there might not be actually invisible phenomena that
are part of the thought totality.

>> You need far more exacting defintitions
>> if you plan to go this philosophical route.
>
> Don't be ridiculous. If you accept noumenal Number as a scientific
> concept, you have no basis for rejecting the same status wrt Time.
> If you don't, you're a loon.

I do NOT accept the common notion that math is more real than reality.
Hence it total fantasy and thus cannot be measured and hence not science.

>> I don't because we are talking science not philosophy.
>
> You're not.

You're not.

>>> And the speed of thought is limited by the intelligence and skill
>>> of the thinker; the only valid measures are the "words per minute"
>>> type of measure.
>>
>> That is the rate of thought not speed of thought.
>
> You're weaselling. "Rate" and "speed" are synonymous.

You are not understanding. Speed is velocity (without the direction) and
is a length traveled in a given time. A rate is how many events happen
in a given time. The events do not have to be the passage of distance.

>> And of course that is linked to the velocity of consciousness
>
> If you wush to assert that consciousness moves, postulate it
> explicitly, and show cause to accept your postulate.

The concept is simple. If one has velocity you can have as many imagine
consciousness fixes and the passage of time, but there is an equivalent
situation of the entire universe being a large fixed matrix where the
motion is consciousness over that landscape. They are equivalent so you
must accept one or the other of my postulates!

[Ned Latham]

You also forgot that if such a statement's wrong, it's dazzlingly simple
to prove that. All you have to do is produce a single counterexample.

Why didn't you do that, wanker, instead of pulling that ad hom bullshit?

> Obviously if you refuse to look you never see any. That is science.

No shit, sherlock. And what has your looking produced?

What's that? Nothing? Why am I not surprised?

> > > > Note too that Einstein et al notwithstanding, time is a noumewnon,
> > > > not a phenomenon; it is entirely in the mind of man.
> > >
> > > And the way you know this is?
> >
> > No-one has ever detected a lump of time. (And no-one ever will.)
>
> The definition does not say time is quantized, it says it exists
> outside of sense. This is obviously false as time is clearly
> observed and sensed by everyone.

Observed, yes. Sensed, no.

> Kant isn't science. You just want to babble on with fantasies.

Quit projecting, idiot.

> > The reason for that is that its a noumenon, like Number.
> > It has no substance, like Number. It is entirely in the
> > mind of man, like Number.
>
> True for number. Numbers (and all math) are pure fantasy.

Nope. They are objectively defined and provide an objective basis
for measurement and comparison.

> However, that
> does not mean that there might not be actually invisible phenomena that
> are part of the thought totality.

What is that babble supposed to mean?

> > > You need far more exacting defintitions
> > > if you plan to go this philosophical route.
> >
> > Don't be ridiculous. If you accept noumenal Number as a scientific
> > concept, you have no basis for rejecting the same status wrt Time.
> > If you don't, you're a loon.
>
> I do NOT accept the common notion that math is more real than reality.

I did not assert it.

> Hence it total fantasy and thus cannot be measured and hence not science.

Crap.

> > > I don't because we are talking science not philosophy.
> >
> > You're not.
>
> You're not.

No prizes for second, loser.

> > > > And the speed of thought is limited by the intelligence and skill
> > > > of the thinker; the only valid measures are the "words per minute"
> > > > type of measure.
> > >
> > > That is the rate of thought not speed of thought.
> >
> > You're weaselling. "Rate" and "speed" are synonymous.
>
> You are not understanding. Speed is velocity (without the direction) and
> is a length traveled in a given time. A rate is how many events happen
> in a given time. The events do not have to be the passage of distance.

It's you who don't undersyabd. Speed is the rate of change in distance
per unit time.

> > > And of course that is linked to the velocity of consciousness
> >
> > If you wush to assert that consciousness moves, postulate it
> > explicitly, and show cause to accept your postulate.
>
> The concept is simple. If one has velocity you can have as many imagine
> consciousness fixes and the passage of time, but there is an equivalent
> situation of the entire universe being a large fixed matrix where the
> motion is consciousness over that landscape. They are equivalent so you
> must accept one or the other of my postulates!

You're babbling. If you're trying to say that the thoughts of one who
moves are moving along with him, you're moving outside the parameters
of the original post, which might as well have asked how fast
people cam move.

[benj]

I don't do that because I don't work for you. If you were half as smart
as you pretend you are, you'd know that the only way you can prove
something doesn't exist is to check all possible placed it might be. I
don't think you've done that.

>> Obviously if you refuse to look you never see any. That is science.
>
> No shit, sherlock. And what has your looking produced?

Statistical data at least as good as that which justifies QM.

> What's that? Nothing? Why am I not surprised

Experimental data is not nothing. Of course refusing to examine it means
it doesn't exist, right? Just like sticking your head in the sand makes
the world go away.(or was that nobody looking at the moon means it's not
there?

>
>>>>> Note too that Einstein et al notwithstanding, time is a noumewnon,
>>>>> not a phenomenon; it is entirely in the mind of man.
>>>>
>>>> And the way you know this is?
>>>
>>> No-one has ever detected a lump of time. (And no-one ever will.)
>>
>> The definition does not say time is quantized, it says it exists
>> outside of sense. This is obviously false as time is clearly
>> observed and sensed by everyone.
>
> Observed, yes. Sensed, no.

Give your definition then of what you mean by Observe and Sense.

>> Kant isn't science. You just want to babble on with fantasies.
>
> Quit projecting, idiot.
>
>>> The reason for that is that its a noumenon, like Number.
>>> It has no substance, like Number. It is entirely in the
>>> mind of man, like Number.
>>
>> True for number. Numbers (and all math) are pure fantasy.
>
> Nope. They are objectively defined and provide an objective basis
> for measurement and comparison.

Defined yes, but objective, no. Is tinkerbell real and objective? I
don't think so.

However, that
>> does not mean that there might not be actually invisible phenomena that
>> are part of the thought totality.
>
> What is that babble supposed to mean?

Are EM fields "sensed"? are tey phenomena or Kantian fantasies?

>>>> You need far more exacting defintitions
>>>> if you plan to go this philosophical route.
>>>
>>> Don't be ridiculous. If you accept noumenal Number as a scientific
>>> concept, you have no basis for rejecting the same status wrt Time.
>>> If you don't, you're a loon.
>>
>> I do NOT accept the common notion that math is more real than reality.
>
> I did not assert it.

Good.

>> Hence it total fantasy and thus cannot be measured and hence not science.
>
> Crap.

A retraction I see.

>>>> I don't because we are talking science not philosophy.
>>>
>>> You're not.
>>
>> You're not.
>
> No prizes for second, loser.

Oh now it's Ad Homs. Pot kettle black.

>>>>> And the speed of thought is limited by the intelligence and skill
>>>>> of the thinker; the only valid measures are the "words per minute"
>>>>> type of measure.
>>>>
>>>> That is the rate of thought not speed of thought.
>>>
>>> You're weaselling. "Rate" and "speed" are synonymous.
>>
>> You are not understanding. Speed is velocity (without the direction) and
>> is a length traveled in a given time. A rate is how many events happen
>> in a given time. The events do not have to be the passage of distance.
>
> It's you who don't undersyabd. Speed is the rate of change in distance
> per unit time.

Yeah, right only you unersyabd speed. Got it.

>>>> And of course that is linked to the velocity of consciousness
>>>
>>> If you wush to assert that consciousness moves, postulate it
>>> explicitly, and show cause to accept your postulate.
>>
>> The concept is simple. If one has velocity you can have as many imagine
>> consciousness fixes and the passage of time, but there is an equivalent
>> situation of the entire universe being a large fixed matrix where the
>> motion is consciousness over that landscape. They are equivalent so you
>> must accept one or the other of my postulates!
>
> You're babbling. If you're trying to say that the thoughts of one who
> moves are moving along with him, you're moving outside the parameters
> of the original post, which might as well have asked how fast
> people cam move.

Apology accepted.

[Ned Latham]

benj wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > benj wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:

----snip----

> > > Ah, I forgot to take into account your "superpowers" that allow you
> > > to check the entire universe for evidence.
> >
> > You also forgot that if such a statement's wrong, it's dazzlingly simple
> > to prove that. All you have to do is produce a single counterexample.
> >
> > Why didn't you do that, wanker, instead of pulling that ad hom bullshit?
>
> I don't do that because I don't work for you. If you were half as smart
> as you pretend you are, you'd know that the only way you can prove
> something doesn't exist is to check all possible placed it might be. I
> don't think you've done that.

I don't need to. You're the one asserting an existence: it's up to you
to show evidence for it. Just one example, moron. Go for it.

> > > Obviously if you refuse to look you never see any. That is science.
> >
> > No shit, sherlock. And what has your looking produced?
>
> Statistical data

*What* statistical data. You've presented nothing.

> at least as good as that which justifies QM.

Idiot. QM is pure mathematics. It doesn't need external jusrification.

> > What's that? Nothing? Why am I not surprised?

>
> Experimental data is not nothing.

*What* experimental data. You've presented nothing.

> Of course refusing to examine it means
> it doesn't exist, right? Just like sticking your head in the sand makes
> the world go away.(or was that nobody looking at the moon means it's not
> there?

You're the lunatic off in la-la-land, you decide.

> > > The definition does not say time is quantized, it says it exists
> > > outside of sense. This is obviously false as time is clearly
> > > observed and sensed by everyone.
> >
> > Observed, yes. Sensed, no.
>
> Give your definition then of what you mean by Observe and Sense.

Fuck you. You're the one trying to make something out of a primitive
and childish superstition. Maybe you should try posting in one of the
religion newsgroups.

> > > Kant isn't science. You just want to babble on with fantasies.
> >
> > Quit projecting, idiot.
> >
> > > > The reason for that is that its a noumenon, like Number.
> > > > It has no substance, like Number. It is entirely in the
> > > > mind of man, like Number.
> > >
> > > True for number. Numbers (and all math) are pure fantasy.
> >
> > Nope. They are objectively defined and provide an objective basis
> > for measurement and comparison.
>
> Defined yes, but objective, no. Is tinkerbell real and objective? I
> don't think so.

Tinkerbell isn't a mathematical statement, moron.

> However, that
> > > does not mean that there might not be actually invisible phenomena that
> > > are part of the thought totality.
> >
> > What is that babble supposed to mean?
>
> Are EM fields "sensed"?

No.

> are tey phenomena or Kantian fantasies?

I donb't know.

----idiot misconstructions snipped----

> > > > > I don't because we are talking science not philosophy.
> > > >
> > > > You're not.
> > >
> > > You're not.
> >
> > No prizes for second, loser.
>
> Oh now it's Ad Homs. Pot kettle black.

You started it. Get this into your pointy little head, maggot: if you
want civil discourse, keep your own utterances civil. ALL of them.

Furthewr idiot misconstructions of what I said treated as they deserve:

----snip----

[benj]

On 04/27/2017 10:46 AM, Ned Latham wrote:
> benj wrote:
>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>> benj wrote:
>>>> Ned Latham wrote:
>
> ----snip----
>
>>>> Ah, I forgot to take into account your "superpowers" that allow you
>>>> to check the entire universe for evidence.
>>>
>>> You also forgot that if such a statement's wrong, it's dazzlingly simple
>>> to prove that. All you have to do is produce a single counterexample.
>>>
>>> Why didn't you do that, wanker, instead of pulling that ad hom bullshit?
>>
>> I don't do that because I don't work for you. If you were half as smart
>> as you pretend you are, you'd know that the only way you can prove
>> something doesn't exist is to check all possible placed it might be. I
>> don't think you've done that.
>
> I don't need to. You're the one asserting an existence: it's up to you
> to show evidence for it. Just one example, moron. Go for it.

I already said that near death experiences are suggestive of mind
exiting in realms out side of biological brain. Note that this is
evidence, not proof. Go ahead and now tell us that you won't believe any
evidence, but only proof. That isn't science.

>>>> Obviously if you refuse to look you never see any. That is science.
>>>
>>> No shit, sherlock. And what has your looking produced?
>>
>> Statistical data
>
> *What* statistical data. You've presented nothing.

It't not my job to educate you. If you took some time to actually do a
search on the subject and get some basic information there might be a
discussion instead all you want is a political/religious debate.
Obviously that is not science.

>> at least as good as that which justifies QM.
>
> Idiot. QM is pure mathematics. It doesn't need external jusrification.
>
>>> What's that? Nothing? Why am I not surprised?
>>
>> Experimental data is not nothing.
>
> *What* experimental data. You've presented nothing.

do you accept that that the series of "remote viewing" experiments are
real and produced suggestive results? IF you deny them, then there can
be no discussion.

>> Of course refusing to examine it means
>> it doesn't exist, right? Just like sticking your head in the sand makes
>> the world go away.(or was that nobody looking at the moon means it's not
>> there?
>
> You're the lunatic off in la-la-land, you decide.

So you do not accept "modern" physics ideas? You reject physics as
lunacy? Well, then what DO you accept as interesting or true?

>>>> The definition does not say time is quantized, it says it exists
>>>> outside of sense. This is obviously false as time is clearly
>>>> observed and sensed by everyone.
>>>
>>> Observed, yes. Sensed, no.
>>
>> Give your definition then of what you mean by Observe and Sense.
>
> Fuck you. You're the one trying to make something out of a primitive
> and childish superstition. Maybe you should try posting in one of the
> religion newsgroups.

Oh look Muffy. Here's the college debate team demanding that the
opposition provide total justification for any premise, but the debater
can't be bothered to even define his terms and uses "name calling" as
his version of "science". Yeah real scientific.

>>>> Kant isn't science. You just want to babble on with fantasies.
>>>
>>> Quit projecting, idiot.
>>>
>>>>> The reason for that is that its a noumenon, like Number.
>>>>> It has no substance, like Number. It is entirely in the
>>>>> mind of man, like Number.
>>>>
>>>> True for number. Numbers (and all math) are pure fantasy.
>>>
>>> Nope. They are objectively defined and provide an objective basis
>>> for measurement and comparison.
>>
>> Defined yes, but objective, no. Is tinkerbell real and objective? I
>> don't think so.
>
> Tinkerbell isn't a mathematical statement, moron.

Whoosh! (the point flying over your pointy little head)

>> However, that
>>>> does not mean that there might not be actually invisible phenomena that
>>>> are part of the thought totality.
>>>
>>> What is that babble supposed to mean?
>>
>> Are EM fields "sensed"?
>
> No.
>
>> are tey phenomena or Kantian fantasies?
>
> I donb't know.
>
> ----idiot misconstructions snipped----
>
>>>>>> I don't because we are talking science not philosophy.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're not.
>>>>
>>>> You're not.
>>>
>>> No prizes for second, loser.
>>
>> Oh now it's Ad Homs. Pot kettle black.
>
> You started it. Get this into your pointy little head, maggot: if you
> want civil discourse, keep your own utterances civil. ALL of them.

Wow! We independently both came up with the "pointy little head" slam!
We are obviously both imperial thinkers on our way to a great new
theoretical breakthrough!

> Furthewr idiot misconstructions of what I said treated as they deserve:

Deserve in your uniformed opinion.

I suggest you retreat back to your Ivory Tower where science is done by
political debate and majority vote.

[Ned Latham]

benj wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > benj wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > benj wrote:
> > > > > Ned Latham wrote:
> >
> > ----snip----
> >
> > > > > Ah, I forgot to take into account your "superpowers" that allow you
> > > > > to check the entire universe for evidence.
> > > >
> > > > You also forgot that if such a statement's wrong, it's dazzlingly simple
> > > > to prove that. All you have to do is produce a single counterexample.
> > > >
> > > > Why didn't you do that, wanker, instead of pulling that ad hom bullshit?
> > >
> > > I don't do that because I don't work for you. If you were half as smart
> > > as you pretend you are, you'd know that the only way you can prove
> > > something doesn't exist is to check all possible placed it might be. I
> > > don't think you've done that.
> >
> > I don't need to. You're the one asserting an existence: it's up to you
> > to show evidence for it. Just one example, moron. Go for it.
>
> I already said that near death experiences are suggestive of mind
> exiting in realms out side of biological brain.

That has just two problems: first, it's a mere asserion; second,
it asserts a suggestion.

> Note that this is
> evidence, not proof. Go ahead and now tell us that you won't believe
> any evidence, but only proof. That isn't science.

You have provided no evidence, only an assertion. Of a suggestion. at
that.

> > > > > Obviously if you refuse to look you never see any. That is science.
> > > >
> > > > No shit, sherlock. And what has your looking produced?
> > >
> > > Statistical data
> >
> > *What* statistical data. You've presented nothing.
>
> It't not my job to educate you.

You've put forward a proposition. If you want it accepted, you have in
fromt of you the job of showing cause to accept it.

> > > at least as good as that which justifies QM.
> >
> > Idiot. QM is pure mathematics. It doesn't need external jusrification.
> >
> > > > What's that? Nothing? Why am I not surprised?
> > >
> > > Experimental data is not nothing.
> >
> > *What* experimental data. You've presented nothing.
>
> do you accept that that the series of "remote viewing" experiments are
> real and produced suggestive results? IF you deny them, then there can
> be no discussion.

Haven't seen them. Have seen multitudes of ESP "experiments" over the
years. They're all fraudulent at best. I have no interest in wasting
my time with more of the same. If you want what you're pushing to be
accepted, show some evidence; don't just make assertions.

> > > Of course refusing to examine it means
> > > it doesn't exist, right? Just like sticking your head in the sand makes
> > > the world go away.(or was that nobody looking at the moon means it's not
> > > there?
> >
> > You're the lunatic off in la-la-land, you decide.
>
> So you do not accept "modern" physics ideas?

*What* "modern" physics ideas?

> You reject physics as
> lunacy? Well, then what DO you accept as interesting or true?

That doesn't matter. What matters here is your need to state your
proposition clearly and show cause to accept it.

> > > > > The definition does not say time is quantized, it says it exists
> > > > > outside of sense. This is obviously false as time is clearly
> > > > > observed and sensed by everyone.
> > > >
> > > > Observed, yes. Sensed, no.
> > >
> > > Give your definition then of what you mean by Observe and Sense.
> >
> > Fuck you. You're the one trying to make something out of a primitive
> > and childish superstition. Maybe you should try posting in one of the
> > religion newsgroups.
>
> Oh look Muffy. Here's the college debate team demanding that the
> opposition provide total justification for any premise, but the debater
> can't be bothered to even define his terms and uses "name calling" as
> his version of "science". Yeah real scientific.

I repeat: you're the one putting forward a proposition. If you can't
show cause to accept it in physical terms try the whackoes in the
religious groups. Their standards of "evidence" might suit you better.

> > > > > > The reason for that is that its a noumenon, like Number.
> > > > > > It has no substance, like Number. It is entirely in the
> > > > > > mind of man, like Number.
> > > > >
> > > > > True for number. Numbers (and all math) are pure fantasy.
> > > >
> > > > Nope. They are objectively defined and provide an objective basis
> > > > for measurement and comparison.
> > >
> > > Defined yes, but objective, no. Is tinkerbell real and objective? I
> > > don't think so.
> >
> > Tinkerbell isn't a mathematical statement, moron.
>
> Whoosh! (the point flying over your pointy little head)

Again, you don't get kudoes for copyvatting, dimwit.

----snip----

[benj]

On 04/27/2017 12:32 PM, Ned Latham wrote:
> benj wrote:
>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>> benj wrote:
>>>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>>>> benj wrote:
>>>>>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>>
>>> ----snip----
>>>
>>>>>> Ah, I forgot to take into account your "superpowers" that allow you
>>>>>> to check the entire universe for evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>> You also forgot that if such a statement's wrong, it's dazzlingly simple
>>>>> to prove that. All you have to do is produce a single counterexample.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why didn't you do that, wanker, instead of pulling that ad hom bullshit?
>>>>
>>>> I don't do that because I don't work for you. If you were half as smart
>>>> as you pretend you are, you'd know that the only way you can prove
>>>> something doesn't exist is to check all possible placed it might be. I
>>>> don't think you've done that.
>>>
>>> I don't need to. You're the one asserting an existence: it's up to you
>>> to show evidence for it. Just one example, moron. Go for it.
>>
>> I already said that near death experiences are suggestive of mind
>> exiting in realms out side of biological brain.
>
> That has just two problems: first, it's a mere asserion; second,
> it asserts a suggestion.

Not interested in discussion of ideas, only belief, I see. That's not
science. It'e religion.

>> Note that this is
>> evidence, not proof. Go ahead and now tell us that you won't believe
>> any evidence, but only proof. That isn't science.
>
> You have provided no evidence, only an assertion. Of a suggestion. at
> that.

So I'm supposed to "convert" you from your fundie beliefs? Not my job.

>>>>>> Obviously if you refuse to look you never see any. That is science.
>>>>>
>>>>> No shit, sherlock. And what has your looking produced?
>>>>
>>>> Statistical data
>>>
>>> *What* statistical data. You've presented nothing.
>>
>> It't not my job to educate you.
>
> You've put forward a proposition. If you want it accepted, you have in
> fromt of you the job of showing cause to accept it.

This is not a political debate, bunky.

>>>> at least as good as that which justifies QM.
>>>
>>> Idiot. QM is pure mathematics. It doesn't need external jusrification.
>>>
>>>>> What's that? Nothing? Why am I not surprised?
>>>>
>>>> Experimental data is not nothing.
>>>
>>> *What* experimental data. You've presented nothing.
>>
>> do you accept that that the series of "remote viewing" experiments are
>> real and produced suggestive results? IF you deny them, then there can
>> be no discussion.
>
> Haven't seen them. Have seen multitudes of ESP "experiments" over the
> years. They're all fraudulent at best. I have no interest in wasting
> my time with more of the same. If you want what you're pushing to be
> accepted, show some evidence; don't just make assertions.

And you assertion that they are all "fraudulent" is backed with what?
Your opinion? An reasonable research into what has been done
demonstrated that such claims are baseless and not even accepted among
skeptics. So I won't waste your time with any discussion of facts when
you have truth ready right from your imagination.

>>>> Of course refusing to examine it means
>>>> it doesn't exist, right? Just like sticking your head in the sand makes
>>>> the world go away.(or was that nobody looking at the moon means it's not
>>>> there?
>>>
>>> You're the lunatic off in la-la-land, you decide.
>>
>> So you do not accept "modern" physics ideas?
>
> *What* "modern" physics ideas?

Observation needed to produce reality. Never heard of it?

>> You reject physics as
>> lunacy? Well, then what DO you accept as interesting or true?
>
> That doesn't matter. What matters here is your need to state your
> proposition clearly and show cause to accept it.

Yada yada yada. Yeah. you are king shit and everybody needs to bow and
scrape and convince you that your religion needs to be adjusted. Sorry
this is a science group and not a fundie meeting.

>>>>>> The definition does not say time is quantized, it says it exists
>>>>>> outside of sense. This is obviously false as time is clearly
>>>>>> observed and sensed by everyone.
>>>>>
>>>>> Observed, yes. Sensed, no.
>>>>
>>>> Give your definition then of what you mean by Observe and Sense.
>>>
>>> Fuck you. You're the one trying to make something out of a primitive
>>> and childish superstition. Maybe you should try posting in one of the
>>> religion newsgroups.
>>
>> Oh look Muffy. Here's the college debate team demanding that the
>> opposition provide total justification for any premise, but the debater
>> can't be bothered to even define his terms and uses "name calling" as
>> his version of "science". Yeah real scientific.
>
> I repeat: you're the one putting forward a proposition. If you can't
> show cause to accept it in physical terms try the whackoes in the
> religious groups. Their standards of "evidence" might suit you better.

I have pointed out statistical data on ESP through remote viewing
research. I"ve pointed out that it was published in IEEE. There are
other well-known experimentalists none of which you deign to even look
up. YOu just cross your arms and pout and say YOU make me believe that
Jesus isn't my savior! Yeah this discussion is going to get for. NOT.

>>>>>>> The reason for that is that its a noumenon, like Number.
>>>>>>> It has no substance, like Number. It is entirely in the
>>>>>>> mind of man, like Number.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True for number. Numbers (and all math) are pure fantasy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope. They are objectively defined and provide an objective basis
>>>>> for measurement and comparison.
>>>>
>>>> Defined yes, but objective, no. Is tinkerbell real and objective? I
>>>> don't think so.
>>>
>>> Tinkerbell isn't a mathematical statement, moron.
>>
>> Whoosh! (the point flying over your pointy little head)
>
> Again, you don't get kudoes for copyvatting, dimwit.

I have no idea what "copyvatting" is. You are simply too intellectual
for me and you have run my worthless ass right out of this group as so
many others have before you. You da man.

[The Starmaker]

Ned Latham wrote:
>
> benj wrote:
>
> ----snip----
>
> > You need to think about this a bit more, sylvia. While obviously the
> > transmission speed of "thoughts" in organism is slow as determined by
> > action potential timing and other factors. But that does not consider
> > the OTHER question which would be given an ESP "remote viewing" is the
> > speed of transmission of information limited by the speed of light.
> > There are a number of indications and reports that might seem to
> > indicate it is not, but there are additional problems in that there
> > seems to be a certain looseness to time which could mean that
> > transmissions are at c but you are sensing the future so there is the
> > appearance of FTL transmissions. This is real science thought unlike all
> > the religious atheist clowns here who are all convinced that thoughts
> > occur ONLY within the brain cells. Feh.
>
> Rubbish.
>
> Thought is a function of Mind. If you wish to assert that Mind can
> exist apart from Brain, postulate it explicitly, and show cause to
> accept your postulate.

Thought is not a function of the mind...it is a product of the brain.
It's information...processed by a brain.

[The Starmaker]

Ned Latham wrote:
>
> benj wrote:
> > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > benj wrote:
> > >
> > > ----snip----
> > >
> > > > You need to think about this a bit more, sylvia. While obviously the
> > > > transmission speed of "thoughts" in organism is slow as determined by
> > > > action potential timing and other factors. But that does not consider
> > > > the OTHER question which would be given an ESP "remote viewing" is the
> > > > speed of transmission of information limited by the speed of light.
> > > > There are a number of indications and reports that might seem to
> > > > indicate it is not, but there are additional problems in that there
> > > > seems to be a certain looseness to time which could mean that
> > > > transmissions are at c but you are sensing the future so there is the
> > > > appearance of FTL transmissions. This is real science thought unlike all
> > > > the religious atheist clowns here who are all convinced that thoughts
> > > > occur ONLY within the brain cells. Feh.
> > >
> > > Rubbish.
> >
> > Obvious science jargon.
>
> It translates into the English term "rubbish".

"rubbish" is not English...it is Englandish.

spoon in the mouth talk, the language of a banana republic.

[The Starmaker]

Jonathan Doolin wrote:

>
> On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 6:40:02 PM UTC-5, benj wrote:
> > On 4/25/2017 5:53 PM, Ned Latham wrote:
> > > Thought is a function of Mind. If you wish to assert that Mind can
> > > exist apart from Brain, postulate it explicitly, and show cause to
> > > accept your postulate.
> >
> > I postulate it. Persistence of consciousness.
> >
>

> That's not much of a postulate.
> It's not even a complete sentence.
> And "persistence of consciousness"
> certainly doesn't clearly demonstrate
> that "mind can exist apart from brain."
>
> My computer shows persistence of memory
> but that's because it contains
> billions of memory cells
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_cell_(binary)
> INSIDE it.
>
> In the same way,
> I have persistence of consciousness
> because of internal memory.
>
> What the computer cannot do
> (I would postulate)
> is experience frustration, contentment, pain, or lust
> or experience the color of green or blue.
> or desire to play a video game.
> It can go through the actions,
> and make me believe it feels,
> because someone has programmed it to do so.
> But it does not feel.


There is no such thing as 'persistence of consciouness'...

you never heard of, "unconsciouness"???

When you sleep, ...you become unconsciouns to the point of no
consciouness...then the brain contiunes to process thought/information.

No mind or consciouness is necessary.

[The Starmaker]

How long did it take for "this thought" to reach you?

[Notroll2016]

"The Starmaker" wrote in message news:59023F...@ix.netcom.com...

How long did it take for "this thought" to reach you?

***Quite some time because Hagar's shit stain of a comment was ahead of it
in the queue.

[benj]

And the way you know that thought is purely biological is?

Ah, Superpowers.

[benj]

And the way you know this is? Ah, Superpowers.

[Ned Latham]

> > That has just two problems: first, it's a mere assertion; second,

> > it asserts a suggestion.
>
> Not interested in discussion of ideas, only belief, I see.

That's your position, liar. You're wasting your time and mine trying
to progect your superstitions into me; though there are morons here
gullible enough to be taken in by such idiocies, I am the only person
it would do you any good to convince, and I'm`not one of them.

> That's not science. It'e religion.

Yes. It would be well if you stopped trying to push it in here. As
I said earlier, go and bother the kooks in the religious groups.

I note in buried in your drivel I've snipped from below your offer
to cease wasting my time. I accept with thanks.

Extend it to the groop, please.

----snip----

[Ned Latham]

The Starmaker wrote:

----snip----

> There is no such thing as 'persistence of consciouness'...

In the sense proposed, correct.

> you never heard of, "unconsciouness"???
>
> When you sleep, ...you become unconsciouns to the point of no
> consciouness...then the brain contiunes to process thought/information.
>
> No mind or consciouness is necessary.

Crap. There are two levels of mind: perception, which involves awareness,
and imprint, which does not. They correspond roughly to what the trick
cyclists call the "conscious" and "unconscious". What most call "thought"
occurs at both levels: at the level of perception it's fantasy; at the
level of imprint it's dream.

[Ned Latham]

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> How long did it take for "this thought" to reach you?

It's not a thoight; it's a translation of a thought into text.

[The Starmaker]

I didn't translate it into text...

and I don't know what form it was before it was translated into thought.

[The Starmaker]

Thought is physics, not philosophy.

You don't put philosophy throught telephone lines..

[The Starmaker]

There is no proof that 'consciouness' exist.

[The Starmaker]

consciouness is spirtual, thought is physics.


don't you people know this stuff?..

[Ned Latham]

Don't be ridiculous.

> don't you people know this stuff?..

If course not. One can not know that which is not.

[Ned Latham]

The Starmaker wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > How long did it take for "this thought" to reach you?
> >
> > It's not a thoight; it's a translation of a thought into text.
>
> I didn't translate it into text...

Someone did.

> and I don't know what form it was before it was translated into
> thought.

You're assuming that your thought existed before you thought it.
That's nonsense.

[Ned Latham]

The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > Ned Latham wrote:

----snip----

> > > Thought is a function of Mind. If you wish to assert that Mind can
> > > exist apart from Brain, postulate it explicitly, and show cause to
> > > accept your postulate.
> >
> > Thought is not a function of the mind

Wrong.

> > ...it is a product of the brain.

Mind is a product of the brain. Thought is a function of mind.

> > It's information...processed by a brain.

So are mathematics, the heroin rush, Quo Vadis...
Try not to be so simplistic.

> Thought is physics, not philosophy.
>

> You don't put philosophy through telephone lines..

Same goes for physics.

What you put through telephone lines is information.

[Ned Latham]

The Starmaker wrote:

----snip----

> There is no proof that 'consciouness' exist.

Wrong. Cogito, ergo sum.

[The Starmaker]

Ned Latham wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > How long did it take for "this thought" to reach you?
> > >
> > > It's not a thoight; it's a translation of a thought into text.
> >
> > I didn't translate it into text...
>
> Someone did.

it first translated into zeros and ones..

i thought you people know this stuff..

>
> > and I don't know what form it was before it was translated into
> > thought.
>
> You're assuming that your thought existed before you thought it.
> That's nonsense.

you don't think i come out with this stuff on my own, do you?

[The Starmaker]

There are a lot among us running around knowing that which is
not....you're one of them.

[The Starmaker]

Ned Latham wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
>
> ----snip----
>
> > > > Thought is a function of Mind. If you wish to assert that Mind can
> > > > exist apart from Brain, postulate it explicitly, and show cause to
> > > > accept your postulate.
> > >
> > > Thought is not a function of the mind
>
> Wrong.
>
> > > ...it is a product of the brain.
>
> Mind is a product of the brain. Thought is a function of mind.

you british have thing thing all backwards...


put some ice in your water.

[The Starmaker]

Cogito, ergo sum???? You got two spoons in your mouth???? you're as bent
as a nine-bob note.

[Notroll2016]

"Ned Latham" wrote in message
news:slrnog6egd.6...@woden.valhalla.oz...

*****************
I believe some thoughts exist all the time. Take Hagar, for example. His
thought, "Why does it burn when I pee?" is always there even if it's not at
the forefront of his consciousness.

[Ned Latham]

The Starmaker wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > How long did it take for "this thought" to reach you?
> > > >
> > > > It's not a thoight; it's a translation of a thought into text.
> > >
> > > I didn't translate it into text...
> >
> > Someone did.
>
> it first translated into zeros and ones..

Irrelevant.

> i thought you people know this stuff..

You "thought". LOL.

> > > and I don't know what form it was before it was translated into
> > > thought.
> >
> > You're assuming that your thought existed before you thought it.
> > That's nonsense.
>
> you don't think i come out with this stuff on my own, do you?

You needed *help*? Sheesh.

[Ned Latham]

Nope. Knowing that something is not is not knowing it.

[Ned Latham]

The Starmaker wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > Ned Latham wrote:
> >
> > ----snip----
> >
> > > > > Thought is a function of Mind. If you wish to assert that Mind can
> > > > > exist apart from Brain, postulate it explicitly, and show cause to
> > > > > accept your postulate.
> > > >
> > > > Thought is not a function of the mind
> >
> > Wrong.
> >
> > > > ...it is a product of the brain.
> >
> > Mind is a product of the brain. Thought is a function of mind.
>
> you british have thing thing all backwards...

I'm not British.

> put some ice in your water.

Have to melt some ice first.

[Ned Latham]

The Starmaker wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > ----snip----
> >
> > > There is no proof that 'consciouness' exist.
> >
> > Wrong. Cogito, ergo sum.
>
> Cogito, ergo sum?

Yair, Some frog reckoned it sounds good, and I agree with him.
Sure sounds better than "Je pense, donc j'existe". That "donc"
makes it sound like he's talking about auto engines.

> You got two spoons in your mouth?

Do people get born any other way?

> you're as bent as a nine-bob note.

Bent over with laughter, you mean? Of course. You *are* rather funny,
you know, even if it *is* accidental.

[Ned Latham]

Notroll2016 wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > How long did it take for "this thought" to reach you?
> > > >
> > > > It's not a thoight; it's a translation of a thought into text.
> > >
> > > I didn't translate it into text...
> >
> > Someone did.
> >
> > > and I don't know what form it was before it was translated into
> > > thought.
> >
> > You're assuming that your thought existed before you thought it.
> > That's nonsense.
>

> I believe some thoughts exist all the time. Take Hagar, for example.

I have heard of Hagar. But I know nothing of Hagar.

> His thought, "Why does it burn when I pee?" is always there even
> if it's not at the forefront of his consciousness.

Ah, Hagar is male and he pees. I have heard of beings like that.

I am curious as to how you can be certain that he has consciousness
and a thought. Also that the thought is "why does it burn when I pee?

But most importantly, did that thought exist before he first peed?

Ned

[Notroll2016]

"Ned Latham" wrote in message

news:slrnog81pg.t...@woden.valhalla.oz...

******
No, the thought didn't exist until shortly after the time he first had sex -
around the age of 35. He couldn't afford it before then.

[Ned Latham]

Notroll2016 wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Notroll2016 wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How long did it take for "this thought" to reach you?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's not a thoight; it's a translation of a thought into text.
> > > > >
> > > > > I didn't translate it into text...
> > > >
> > > > Someone did.
> > > >
> > > > > and I don't know what form it was before it was translated into
> > > > > thought.
> > > >
> > > > You're assuming that your thought existed before you thought it.
> > > > That's nonsense.
> > >
> > > I believe some thoughts exist all the time. Take Hagar, for example.
> >
> > I have heard of Hagar. But I know nothing of Hagar.
> >
> > > His thought, "Why does it burn when I pee?" is always there even
> > > if it's not at the forefront of his consciousness.
> >
> > Ah, Hagar is male and he pees. I have heard of beings like that.
> >
> > I am curious as to how you can be certain that he has consciousness
> > and a thought. Also that the thought is "why does it burn when I pee?
> >
> > But most importantly, did that thought exist before he first peed?
>

> No, the thought didn't exist until shortly after the time he first had
> sex - around the age of 35.

Aj. I see: having sex before one reaches full maturity makes the
thought "why does it burn when I pee?" occur. The people on your
planet are most strange. Not least in those funny namnes you gace.

> He couldn't afford it before then.

I feel sick. There is something pathological about a society that
would allow someone so young to use money or some such.

Ned

[Notroll2016]

"Ned Latham" wrote in message

news:slrnog9e9a.h...@woden.valhalla.oz...

************
Don't judge us all by Hagar. In the Western cultures of our planet, regular
sexual intercourse usually begins in the late teens to early twenties.
Hagar is one of those exceptions that prove the rule. Females have never
been attracted to him due to his general appearance and lack of compensating
characteristics. That being the case, the only sexual outlets available to
him were self abuse, farm animals and paid sex workers. Skilled sex workers
are expensive and it was not until age 35 that Hagar had saved enough money
to induce a woman to engage in intercourse with him. Unfortunately, Hagar's
father never taught him about safe sex practices and he caught a venereal
disease from his first encounter. Hence the "Why does it burn when I pee?"
thought that only began in his mid adult years.

[The Starmaker]

Has the thought ever came to you?

When did the idea came to you??


Do you understand the difference between You and where your Idea comes
from? Where was your idea before it came to You??

[The Starmaker]

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Jonathan Doolin wrote:
> >

> > On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 2:37:36 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Thought travels faster than the speed of light, not it's carrier (neurons) that receives and sends information. You're confusing
> > > thought and neurons. They are seperate.
> > >
> >
> > You either have the impression that I have confused thought and neurons, or you are pretending to.
> >
> > > You take a train, it takes you to the destination at a certain speed. You get off and take a plane...you're moving faster.
> > >
> > > You're confusing the speed of thought with the speed of a...neuron.
> > >
> >
> > You either have the impression that I have confused the speed of thought
> > with the speed of a neuron, or you are pretending to.
> >
> > > You ideas are confused.
> > >
> >
> > You either have the impression that my ideas are confused, or you are pretending to.
> >
> > > What is your problem????
> > >
> >
> > You either have the impression that I have a problem, or you are pretending to.
> >
> > > Get off the train and take a plane already!
> > >
> > > Get off the horse and buggy...
> >
> > If you mean me to take that literally, I would note that I am
> > not on a train, a horse, or a buggy. If you mean me to take
> > it figuratively, I do not know what literal course of action
> > would be analogous to "take a plane already".
> >
> > Well, Starmaker, I will say, at least your argument
> > is consistent with your behavior. I have the impression
> > that you really believe that you can look into other
> > people's thoughts, and make an assessment of their confusion
> > without actually looking at the evidence in their words,
> > or trying to understand the meaning.
> >
> > If that's your worldview, then obviously, my thoughts
> > will appear confused, because you have not begun to
> > understand them. If you had any understanding of what I
> > was actually saying, then you would not think I was confused
> > regarding the speed of thought, and the speed of neurons.
> >
> > You would realize that I was only requesting clarification
> > on what you meant, and indeed, I was, and still am confused
> > regarding what you are meaning. Instead of giving me any
> > clarification, you have attacked strawmen, acknowledged that
> > your impression of my argument is confused, and and told me to
> > get off train, horse, buggy, and take a plane.
>
> In order to send an email...
>
> you have to put your
>
> thoughts in it, information..otherwise it will Not send....it won't go
> no where.
>
> The Speed of Thought is.. how fast can Thought travel?
>
> It occured to me...that maybe yous have no idea what "thought" is.
>
> How can you measure something if you have no idea what it is????



Furthermore..

in order to communicate with aliens from another planet..
you need to use the universe nervous system to channel your thought to them..


and if you don't understand the speed of thought...

how can you begin to use the universe nervous system????

an idea just came to me...