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 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-02 05:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a752cfce-8536-4bc5-9dd9-750eec3d4108@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #417664 |
On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 12:47:24 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > > > consciouness is spirtual, thought is physics.
> > > >
> > > > Don't be ridiculous.
> > > >
> > > > > don't you people know this stuff?..
> > > >
> > > > If course not. One can not know that which is not.
> > >
> > > There are a lot among us running around knowing that which is
> > > not....you're one of them.
> >
> > Nope. Knowing that something is not is not knowing it.
>
>
>
> Has the thought ever came to you?
>
I don't know to what thought you're referring.
> When did the idea came to you??
>
Faster than the speed of lint?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c04HpVOe5M
>
> Do you understand the difference between You and where your Idea comes
> from?
Because my concept of self
is more-or-less defined by this property
"I am where my ideas come from."
I cannot say "I understand" the difference between "a thing" and
"the only thing which has a unique property of that thing."
But you want to claim there is a difference
between my "self" and "where my ideas come from?"
And if you want to claim that,
that's fine,
but that would probably be a semantic difference
(Semantic differences are important...
It means we have two different definitions of the same word.)
--that is,
If you think that ideas come from somewhere other than self,
you're definition of "self" and my definition of "self"
are in disagreement.
> Where was your idea before it came to You??
In general, any idea that I have
is largely associated with physical inputs--
light, sound, feel,
and biological reactions to those experiences,
and free-associations, or organizing patterns.
And options for physical outputs,
desires, fears, plans, etc.
And impulses to carry out plans,
walking, talking.
The only mysteries to science here,
are desires and colors and choice.
I believe,
though I cannot prove,
there is an element of free-will to these processes;
that is,
that some of this process of "mind" and "thought"
is not entirely predictable through laws of physics,
nor determined entirely random variables,
but represents actual choice made by free-will entity.
Now, is that free will entity an individual "self"
or a collective of many cooperating neurons?
All cooperating...
To form a collective knowledge base, A memory database
including memories, principles, values, and emotions.
All cooperating....
to effect change through voluntary physical motion.
Where was my idea before it came to me?
It depends on which idea you're talking about.
If it is a nonfictional idea,
chances are, it is an abstraction of a pattern from many observations.
If it is a fictional idea,
chances are, it is an invention of a pattern from many observations.
These observations may come
from personal experience of phenomena,
or vicarious experience
through pictures, spoken word, written word, etc.
But I would say,
All of the observations of phenomena
are carried from somewhere else by energy
that can never move faster than the speed of light.
And all of the ideas that are generated
through conscious or unconscious association
are carried via the energy of neurons,
which also can never move faster than the speed of light.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-02 12:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5908E005.6B1C@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #417852 |
Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 12:47:24 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > consciouness is spirtual, thought is physics. > > > > > > > > > > Don't be ridiculous. > > > > > > > > > > > don't you people know this stuff?.. > > > > > > > > > > If course not. One can not know that which is not. > > > > > > > > There are a lot among us running around knowing that which is > > > > not....you're one of them. > > > > > > Nope. Knowing that something is not is not knowing it. > > > > > > > > Has the thought ever came to you? > > > > I don't know to what thought you're referring. > > > When did the idea came to you?? > > > > Faster than the speed of lint? > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c04HpVOe5M > > > > > Do you understand the difference between You and where your Idea comes > > from? > > Because my concept of self > is more-or-less defined by this property > "I am where my ideas come from." > > I cannot say "I understand" the difference between "a thing" and > "the only thing which has a unique property of that thing." > > But you want to claim there is a difference > between my "self" and "where my ideas come from?" > And if you want to claim that, > that's fine, > but that would probably be a semantic difference > (Semantic differences are important... > It means we have two different definitions of the same word.) > --that is, > If you think that ideas come from somewhere other than self, > you're definition of "self" and my definition of "self" > are in disagreement. > > > Where was your idea before it came to You?? > > In general, any idea that I have > is largely associated with physical inputs-- > light, sound, feel, > and biological reactions to those experiences, > and free-associations, or organizing patterns. > And options for physical outputs, > desires, fears, plans, etc. > And impulses to carry out plans, > walking, talking. > > The only mysteries to science here, > are desires and colors and choice. > > I believe, > though I cannot prove, > there is an element of free-will to these processes; > that is, > that some of this process of "mind" and "thought" > is not entirely predictable through laws of physics, > nor determined entirely random variables, > but represents actual choice made by free-will entity. > > Now, is that free will entity an individual "self" > or a collective of many cooperating neurons? > All cooperating... > To form a collective knowledge base, A memory database > including memories, principles, values, and emotions. > All cooperating.... > to effect change through voluntary physical motion. > > Where was my idea before it came to me? > It depends on which idea you're talking about. > If it is a nonfictional idea, > chances are, it is an abstraction of a pattern from many observations. > If it is a fictional idea, > chances are, it is an invention of a pattern from many observations. > > These observations may come > from personal experience of phenomena, > or vicarious experience > through pictures, spoken word, written word, etc. > > But I would say, > All of the observations of phenomena > are carried from somewhere else by energy > that can never move faster than the speed of light. > > And all of the ideas that are generated > through conscious or unconscious association > are carried via the energy of neurons, > which also can never move faster than the speed of light. 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 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 ideas are confused. What is your problem???? Get off the train and take a plane already! Get off the horse and buggy...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-02 21:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnoghtoi.62f.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #417890 |
The Starmaker wrote: > Jonathan Doolin wrote: ----snip---- > Thought travels faster than the speed of light, Crap. Thought doesn't travel. It's a process inseparable from the neurons it occurs in. ----snup----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-03 10:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <590A1195.4E07@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #417899 |
Ned Latham wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > ----snip---- > > > Thought travels faster than the speed of light, > > Crap. Thought doesn't travel. It's a process inseparable > from the neurons it occurs in. > > ----snup---- medical : a cell that carries messages between the brain and other parts of the body and that is the basic unit of the nervous system the property of transmitting and receiving nerve impulses, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neuron Neuron: A nerve cell that receives and sends electrical signals over long distances within the body. http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=7785 In other words, it carries thoughts, ideas, etc... it receives the thought, carries the thought, and sends the thought... IT DOES NOT MAKE THOUGHTS! capice kabish capeesh??? It's obvious to everyone here your intelligence is...limited.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-04 13:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnogmb5u.1n3.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #417964 |
The Starmaker wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > Thought travels faster than the speed of light, > > > > Crap. Thought doesn't travel. It's a process inseparable > > from the neurons it occurs in. > > medical: a cell that carries messages between the brain and > other parts of the body and that is the basic unit > of the nervous system > > the property of transmitting and receiving nerve impulses, > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neuron > > Neuron: A nerve cell that receives and sends electrical signals > over long distances within the body. > http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=7785 > > In other words, it carries thoughts, ideas, etc... Wrong. It carries stimuli. It takes a ganglion to carry impressions. > it receives the thought, carries the thought, and sends the thought... Wrong. PART of the thought. > IT DOES NOT MAKE THOUGHTS! Correct. > capice kabish capeesh??? Gabble gabble gobble? > It's obvious to everyone here your intelligence is...limited. Everyone's is, dimwot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-04 15:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <590BA6D8.CCD@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #418030 |
Ned Latham wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > > > Thought travels faster than the speed of light, > > > > > > Crap. Thought doesn't travel. It's a process inseparable > > > from the neurons it occurs in. > > > > medical: a cell that carries messages between the brain and > > other parts of the body and that is the basic unit > > of the nervous system > > > > the property of transmitting and receiving nerve impulses, > > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neuron > > > > Neuron: A nerve cell that receives and sends electrical signals > > over long distances within the body. > > http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=7785 > > > > In other words, it carries thoughts, ideas, etc... > > Wrong. It carries stimuli. stimuli is caused by...a thought.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-06 11:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnogrbb4.665.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #418137 |
The Starmaker wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > > > > > Thought travels faster than the speed of light, > > > > > > > > Crap. Thought doesn't travel. It's a process inseparable > > > > from the neurons it occurs in. > > > > > > medical: a cell that carries messages between the brain and > > > other parts of the body and that is the basic unit > > > of the nervous system > > > > > > the property of transmitting and receiving nerve impulses, > > > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neuron > > > > > > Neuron: A nerve cell that receives and sends electrical signals > > > over long distances within the body. > > > http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=7785 > > > > > > In other words, it carries thoughts, ideas, etc... > > > > Wrong. It carries stimuli. > > stimuli is Jesus christ! Get acquainted with English, will you? "Stimuli" is a plural. > caused by...a thought. Wrong. Stimuli occur when you walk unto a wall or hammer your thumb. Any time anything at all impacts on you, the afferent nerves whose receptors are at and near the region of impact receive a stimulus. Each of those nerves reacts to the stimulus with a chemical change that transmits the stimulus to other nerve(s). Open a book on anatomy, you idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-08 22:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59115591.4EA9@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #418372 |
Ned Latham wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > > > > > > > Thought travels faster than the speed of light, > > > > > > > > > > Crap. Thought doesn't travel. It's a process inseparable > > > > > from the neurons it occurs in. > > > > > > > > medical: a cell that carries messages between the brain and > > > > other parts of the body and that is the basic unit > > > > of the nervous system > > > > > > > > the property of transmitting and receiving nerve impulses, > > > > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neuron > > > > > > > > Neuron: A nerve cell that receives and sends electrical signals > > > > over long distances within the body. > > > > http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=7785 > > > > > > > > In other words, it carries thoughts, ideas, etc... > > > > > > Wrong. It carries stimuli. > > > > stimuli is > > Jesus christ! Get acquainted with English, will you? "Stimuli" is a > plural. > > > caused by...a thought. > > Wrong. Stimuli occur when you walk unto a wall or hammer your thumb. > Any time anything at all impacts on you, the afferent nerves whose > receptors are at and near the region of impact receive a stimulus. > Each of those nerves reacts to the stimulus with a chemical change > that transmits the stimulus to other nerve(s). > > Open a book on anatomy, you idiot. anatomy has nothing to do with "chemical change", that's biochemistry....what kind of anatomy books are you reading, coloring books????
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 08:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnoh3fad.peb.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #418812 |
The Starmaker wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thought travels faster than the speed of light, > > > > > > > > > > > > Crap. Thought doesn't travel. It's a process inseparable > > > > > > from the neurons it occurs in. > > > > > > > > > > medical: a cell that carries messages between the brain and > > > > > other parts of the body and that is the basic unit > > > > > of the nervous system > > > > > > > > > > the property of transmitting and receiving nerve impulses, > > > > > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neuron > > > > > > > > > > Neuron: A nerve cell that receives and sends electrical signals > > > > > over long distances within the body. > > > > > http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=7785 > > > > > > > > > > In other words, it carries thoughts, ideas, etc... > > > > > > > > Wrong. It carries stimuli. > > > > > > stimuli is > > > > Jesus christ! Get acquainted with English, will you? "Stimuli" is a > > plural. > > > > > caused by...a thought. > > > > Wrong. Stimuli occur when you walk unto a wall or hammer your thumb. > > Any time anything at all impacts on you, the afferent nerves whose > > receptors are at and near the region of impact receive a stimulus. > > Each of those nerves reacts to the stimulus with a chemical change > > that transmits the stimulus to other nerve(s). > > > > Open a book on anatomy, you idiot. > > anatomy has nothing to do with "chemical change", When uou know what a neuron is (if you ever scale that height), open a book on physiology. > that's biochemistry.... Physiology will get you there. All you need to know is that an excited neuron puts an electrical potential on the terminals of its axon, and that other neurons' dendrites pick that up across the synapses. > what kind of anatomy books are you reading, coloring books???? Probab;y suit you, I suppose, but no, I read books with words in them. Perhaps you can get you nurse to show you what they look like.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 09:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <591341D1.4C18@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #418846 |
Ned Latham wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thought travels faster than the speed of light, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crap. Thought doesn't travel. It's a process inseparable > > > > > > > from the neurons it occurs in. > > > > > > > > > > > > medical: a cell that carries messages between the brain and > > > > > > other parts of the body and that is the basic unit > > > > > > of the nervous system > > > > > > > > > > > > the property of transmitting and receiving nerve impulses, > > > > > > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neuron > > > > > > > > > > > > Neuron: A nerve cell that receives and sends electrical signals > > > > > > over long distances within the body. > > > > > > http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=7785 > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words, it carries thoughts, ideas, etc... > > > > > > > > > > Wrong. It carries stimuli. > > > > > > > > stimuli is > > > > > > Jesus christ! Get acquainted with English, will you? "Stimuli" is a > > > plural. > > > > > > > caused by...a thought. > > > > > > Wrong. Stimuli occur when you walk unto a wall or hammer your thumb. > > > Any time anything at all impacts on you, the afferent nerves whose > > > receptors are at and near the region of impact receive a stimulus. > > > Each of those nerves reacts to the stimulus with a chemical change > > > that transmits the stimulus to other nerve(s). > > > > > > Open a book on anatomy, you idiot. > > > > anatomy has nothing to do with "chemical change", > > When uou know what a neuron is (if you ever scale that height), > open a book on physiology. > > > that's biochemistry.... > > Physiology will get you there. All you need to know is that an excited > neuron puts an electrical potential on the terminals of its axon, and > that other neurons' dendrites pick that up across the synapses. > > > what kind of anatomy books are you reading, coloring books???? > > Probab;y suit you, I suppose, but no, I read books with words in them. > Perhaps you can get you nurse to show you what they look like. Everybody Knows now what Your Speed of Thought is...the Speed of Search Engine. Seems all your thoughts reside in search engines...your mind is blank. When was the last time you actually had an original thought, kindergaten????
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-11 04:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnoh8dfr.v4k.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #419039 |
The Starmaker wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thought travels faster than the speed of light, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crap. Thought doesn't travel. It's a process inseparable > > > > > > > > from the neurons it occurs in. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > medical: a cell that carries messages between the brain and > > > > > > > other parts of the body and that is the basic unit > > > > > > > of the nervous system > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the property of transmitting and receiving nerve impulses, > > > > > > > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neuron > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Neuron: A nerve cell that receives and sends electrical signals > > > > > > > over long distances within the body. > > > > > > > http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=7785 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words, it carries thoughts, ideas, etc... > > > > > > > > > > > > Wrong. It carries stimuli. > > > > > > > > > > stimuli is > > > > > > > > Jesus christ! Get acquainted with English, will you? "Stimuli" is a > > > > plural. > > > > > > > > > caused by...a thought. > > > > > > > > Wrong. Stimuli occur when you walk unto a wall or hammer your thumb. > > > > Any time anything at all impacts on you, the afferent nerves whose > > > > receptors are at and near the region of impact receive a stimulus. > > > > Each of those nerves reacts to the stimulus with a chemical change > > > > that transmits the stimulus to other nerve(s). > > > > > > > > Open a book on anatomy, you idiot. > > > > > > anatomy has nothing to do with "chemical change", > > > > When uou know what a neuron is (if you ever scale that height), > > open a book on physiology. > > > > > that's biochemistry.... > > > > Physiology will get you there. All you need to know is that an excited > > neuron puts an electrical potential on the terminals of its axon, and > > that other neurons' dendrites pick that up across the synapses. > > > > > what kind of anatomy books are you reading, coloring books???? > > > > Probab;y suit you, I suppose, but no, I read books with words in them. > > Perhaps you can get you nurse to show you what they look like. > > Everybody Knows now what Your Speed of Thought is... Wrong. And you're the only one who thinks otherwise. > the Speed of Search Engine. Search engones don't travel. > Seems all your thoughts reside in search engines... It seems that way to you because you *are* a search engine. > your mind is blank. Never judge others by yourself, Blahbaker (give yourself a chance to avoid underestimating them). > When was the last time you actually had an original thought, > kindergaten???? When I thought of regarding you as a rational human being.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-04 07:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <034d1c91-3bf2-4373-87c0-26a6d108b1a4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #417890 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-04 15:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <590BA623.78CC@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #418040 |
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????
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-04 23:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <590C1EF0.1504@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #418136 |
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...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-04 15:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <590BA9B9.3156@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #418040 |
Bill Gates wrote a book...Business at the Speed of Thought. What speed did bill gates have in mind?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 08:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6d3d7675-c4e9-4644-ba7e-6c9ab630b7b8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418139 |
On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 5:22:23 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > Bill Gates wrote a book...Business at the Speed of Thought. > What speed did bill gates have in mind? I imagine he was referring to rate at which ideas occur, as in "number of ideas per unit time" rather than a distance that the idea travels, per unit time. But if you would like to make the case that Bill Gates believes thoughts travel faster than the speed of light, feel free to give a relevant quote that supports that claim.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-08 22:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5911598B.7C6B@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #418234 |
Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 5:22:23 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > Bill Gates wrote a book...Business at the Speed of Thought. > > What speed did bill gates have in mind? > > I imagine he was referring to rate at which ideas occur, You imagine???? imagine? > as in "number of ideas per unit time" rather than a distance > that the idea travels, per unit time. More confused ideas! "Thought" has no relation with...Time, unit time...or space for that matter. You need to remove this silly idea you have 'time and thought', ... When it comes to the speed of thought, ...time is not in the equation. Throw the 't' into the garbage can...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 08:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <41f7b3a1-2b56-4a27-9e48-6538ca286490@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418813 |
On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 12:54:00 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 5:22:23 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Bill Gates wrote a book...Business at the Speed of Thought. > > > What speed did bill gates have in mind? > > > > I imagine he was referring to rate at which ideas occur, > > > You imagine???? imagine? > Yes. > > > as in "number of ideas per unit time" rather than a distance > > that the idea travels, per unit time. > > More confused ideas! > Yes, you are confused. > > "Thought" has no relation with...Time, unit time...or space for that matter. > > Sure it does. > > You need to remove this silly idea you have 'time and thought', ... > In any case, that's not how ideas work. > When it comes to the speed of thought, ...time is not in the equation. > That's incorrect. Speed is always given as change in a quantity over time. > > Throw the 't' into the garbage can... It seems I am doing so, currently.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 23:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5912B1EA.70C1@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #418861 |
Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 12:54:00 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 5:22:23 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Bill Gates wrote a book...Business at the Speed of Thought. > > > > What speed did bill gates have in mind? > > > > > > I imagine he was referring to rate at which ideas occur, > > > > > > You imagine???? imagine? > > > > Yes. > > > > > > as in "number of ideas per unit time" rather than a distance > > > that the idea travels, per unit time. > > > > More confused ideas! > > > > Yes, you are confused. > > > > > "Thought" has no relation with...Time, unit time...or space for that matter. > > > > > > Sure it does. > > > > > You need to remove this silly idea you have 'time and thought', ... > > > > In any case, that's not how ideas work. > > > When it comes to the speed of thought, ...time is not in the equation. > > > > That's incorrect. > Speed is always given as change in a quantity over time. > > > > > Throw the 't' into the garbage can... > > It seems I am doing so, currently. One cannot measure Time. Surely you heard Einsten said Time is an illusion... so how can you measure an illusion? The fact is, Time cannot be measured. The fact is...Time cannot even be...observed. So how do you measure that which is an illusion and is unobservable???? My how time flies...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 06:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a40312a5-c9e4-444b-8e30-3b77a9aefe18@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418960 |
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 1:22:51 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 12:54:00 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 5:22:23 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > Bill Gates wrote a book...Business at the Speed of Thought. > > > > > What speed did bill gates have in mind? > > > > > > > > I imagine he was referring to rate at which ideas occur, > > > > > > > > > You imagine???? imagine? > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > as in "number of ideas per unit time" rather than a distance > > > > that the idea travels, per unit time. > > > > > > More confused ideas! > > > > > > > Yes, you are confused. > > > > > > > > "Thought" has no relation with...Time, unit time...or space for that matter. > > > > > > > > > > Sure it does. > > > > > > > > You need to remove this silly idea you have 'time and thought', ... > > > > > > > In any case, that's not how ideas work. > > > > > When it comes to the speed of thought, ...time is not in the equation. > > > > > > > That's incorrect. > > Speed is always given as change in a quantity over time. > > > > > > > > Throw the 't' into the garbage can... > > > > It seems I am doing so, currently. > > One cannot measure Time. > Sure you can. > Surely you heard Einsten said Time is an illusion... > Nope. But if he did, that is a religious viewpoint; not a scientific one. > so how can you measure an illusion? > > The fact is, Time cannot be measured. > Yes it can. > The fact is...Time cannot even be...observed. > I'm experiencing it now. > So how do you measure that which is an illusion and is unobservable???? > You don't. But time is neither illusion, nor unobservable. > > My how time flies... Human experience and memory make a poor device for precise measurement of time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web