Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #416894 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-04-22 11:37 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-04-27 19:12 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 123 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-22 11:37 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-23 04:35 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-22 22:05 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2017-04-23 14:23 +0200
Re: The Speed of Thought djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2017-04-23 14:17 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2017-04-23 11:07 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2017-04-23 16:31 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2017-04-23 23:11 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-04-23 10:14 -0600
Re: The Speed of Thought Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2017-04-23 11:43 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2017-04-23 20:36 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2017-04-23 19:56 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2017-04-23 16:24 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-23 12:35 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-23 13:00 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-23 23:38 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-23 21:15 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-23 22:38 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-24 06:02 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-04-24 16:55 +1000
Re: The Speed of Thought Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 09:09 +0200
Re: The Speed of Thought Lintervallen Ruther <rt@lweaevte.ri> - 2017-04-24 19:37 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-24 09:42 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-24 10:22 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-04-25 12:03 +1000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-25 00:16 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-04-25 17:42 +1000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-27 11:58 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 02:25 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-27 20:49 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 12:48 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-28 10:37 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 23:36 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-04-25 17:18 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-25 21:53 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-04-25 19:39 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-26 04:36 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-04-26 18:00 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-27 03:13 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-04-27 04:32 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-27 14:46 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-04-27 11:29 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-27 16:32 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-04-27 13:22 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 02:16 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-27 11:43 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 03:39 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-27 11:50 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-04-27 17:21 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-27 23:16 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 12:59 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 09:55 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-28 10:47 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 23:54 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 02:24 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-27 23:18 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 12:45 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-28 10:38 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 23:40 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-29 10:47 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-02 05:05 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-02 12:37 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-02 21:16 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-03 10:21 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-04 13:29 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-04 15:10 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-06 11:03 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-08 22:37 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-09 08:00 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-10 09:37 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-11 04:59 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 07:19 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-04 15:07 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-04 23:42 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-04 15:22 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 08:00 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-08 22:54 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 08:54 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-09 23:23 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 06:03 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-10 09:42 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-10 15:45 -0700
Re: The Speed of Imagination The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-13 10:25 -0700
Re: The Speed of Imagination "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-13 10:42 -0700
Re: The Speed of Imagination The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-13 11:45 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-11 12:52 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-10 10:06 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-10 10:45 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-10 15:41 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-11 04:49 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-14 12:43 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-14 17:39 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-14 21:51 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-15 05:55 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-15 11:20 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-16 11:24 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-16 10:35 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-16 12:52 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-16 13:08 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-16 16:57 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-16 15:09 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-17 10:03 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-17 10:13 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-16 16:42 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-17 09:53 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-16 16:40 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-17 10:01 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-17 16:07 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-27 11:41 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-04-27 17:20 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-27 23:15 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 12:57 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-28 10:41 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 23:45 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 04:13 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-27 11:53 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 10:07 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought SteveGG <casagiannoni@optonline.net> - 2017-04-24 07:48 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-04-24 20:36 +0200
Re: The Speed of Thought Lintervallen Ruther <rt@lweaevte.ri> - 2017-04-24 21:14 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-25 07:42 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 06:05 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-27 19:12 -0700
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-24 09:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <odk84o$stq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #417042 |
Dne 24/04/2017 v 08:55 Sylvia Else napsal(a): > On 23/04/2017 4:37 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >> The Speed of Thought >> >> >> I don't think you girls have even begun to measure it correctly. >> > > I don't think you've even begun to define it correctly. > > Sylvia. Less the people know, the more they think women must be even worse in that. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lintervallen Ruther <rt@lweaevte.ri> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-24 19:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <odlk65$l8p$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #417043 |
Poutnik wrote: >> I don't think you've even begun to define it correctly. Sylvia. > > Less the people know, the more they think women must be even worse in > that. Why not?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-24 09:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <58FE2B13.6D93@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #417042 |
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. 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-24 10:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <58FE345E.55C8@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #417083 |
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. > > 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. 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-25 12:03 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <em7p44F1a0lU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #417083 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-25 00:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <58FEF7DA.45C7@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #417173 |
Sylvia Else wrote: > > 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. Thought has no connection to the speed of light. Consider it...a "spooky action at a distance".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-25 17:42 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <em8cv4F4luhU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #417183 |
On 25/04/2017 5:16 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: >> >> 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. > > Thought has no connection to the speed of light. Consider it...a "spooky > action at a distance". > You have no evidence of that. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 11:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59023F3C.1371@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #417183 |
How long did it take for "this thought" to reach you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 02:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnog5a1i.occ.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #417440 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 20:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5902BBAE.6DF1@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #417507 |
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... and I don't know what form it was before it was translated into thought.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 12:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnog6egd.6cf.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #417512 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 10:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59037DE8.382B@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #417544 |
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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 23:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnog7kga.ojp.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #417568 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-25 17:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <58ffbd0a$0$60157$c3e8da3$66d3cc2f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #417173 |
On 4/24/2017 10:03 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > 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. 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-25 21:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnofvhag.924.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #417238 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-25 19:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <58ffde50$0$28927$c3e8da3$88b277c5@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #417247 |
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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-26 04:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnog08v7.i2e.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #417257 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-26 18:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5901187d$0$52996$c3e8da3$fdf4f6af@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #417279 |
On 4/26/2017 12:36 AM, 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". > >>> 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. 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!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 03:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnog2of9.kp9.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #417358 |
benj wrote: > 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". > > > > > > 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. > > 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? > 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 04:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5901ac9f$0$34600$b1db1813$15bdbe48@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #417382 |
On 04/26/2017 11:13 PM, Ned Latham wrote:
> benj wrote:
>> 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".
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>> 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web