Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #630111 > unrolled thread

The Speed of Thought

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  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 "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 13:52 -0700
    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 john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 06:07 -0700
                    Re: The Speed of Thought john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 12:33 -0700
                    Re: The Speed of Thought benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-04-26 18:05 -0400
                      Re: The Speed of Thought john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 15:42 -0700
                  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 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 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 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-04 23:42 -0700
              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 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

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#630787

On 4/26/2017 9:07 AM, john wrote:
> How big is an idea?
>
How high is up?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#630799

So something much smaller than us
could know more

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#630785

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]

#630833

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]

#630857

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]

#630882

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

----snip----

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

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

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

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

>                  at least as good as that which justifies QM.

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

> > What's that? Nothing? Why am I not surprised?
>
> Experimental data is not nothing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tinkerbell isn't a mathematical statement, moron.

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

No.

> are tey phenomena or Kantian fantasies?

I donb't know.

----idiot misconstructions snipped----

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

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

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

----snip----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#630885

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deserve in your uniformed opinion.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#630897

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*What* "modern" physics ideas?

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

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

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

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

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

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

----snip----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#630904

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

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

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

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

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

This is not a political debate, bunky.

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

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

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

Observation needed to produce reality. Never heard of it?

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

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


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

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

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

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#631011

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

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

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

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

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

Extend it to the groop, please.

----snip----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#630917

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


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

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#630918

Jonathan Doolin wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 6:40:02 PM UTC-5, benj wrote:
> > On 4/25/2017 5:53 PM, Ned Latham wrote:
> > > Thought is a function of Mind. If you wish to assert that Mind can
> > > exist apart from Brain, postulate it explicitly, and show cause to
> > > accept your postulate.
> >
> > I postulate it. Persistence of consciousness.
> >
> 
> That's not much of a postulate.
> It's not even a complete sentence.
> And "persistence of consciousness"
> certainly doesn't clearly demonstrate
> that "mind can exist apart from brain."
> 
> My computer shows persistence of memory
> but that's because it contains
> billions of memory cells
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_cell_(binary)
> INSIDE it.
> 
> In the same way,
> I have persistence of consciousness
> because of internal memory.
> 
> What the computer cannot do
> (I would postulate)
> is experience frustration, contentment, pain, or lust
> or experience the color of green or blue.
> or desire to play a video game.
> It can go through the actions,
> and make me believe it feels,
> because someone has programmed it to do so.
> But it does not feel.


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

you never heard of, "unconsciouness"???

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

No mind or consciouness is necessary.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#630951

On 4/27/2017 2:50 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Jonathan Doolin wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 6:40:02 PM UTC-5, benj wrote:
>>> On 4/25/2017 5:53 PM, Ned Latham wrote:
>>>> Thought is a function of Mind. If you wish to assert that Mind can
>>>> exist apart from Brain, postulate it explicitly, and show cause to
>>>> accept your postulate.
>>>
>>> I postulate it. Persistence of consciousness.
>>>
>>
>> That's not much of a postulate.
>> It's not even a complete sentence.
>> And "persistence of consciousness"
>> certainly doesn't clearly demonstrate
>> that "mind can exist apart from brain."
>>
>> My computer shows persistence of memory
>> but that's because it contains
>> billions of memory cells
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_cell_(binary)
>> INSIDE it.
>>
>> In the same way,
>> I have persistence of consciousness
>> because of internal memory.
>>
>> What the computer cannot do
>> (I would postulate)
>> is experience frustration, contentment, pain, or lust
>> or experience the color of green or blue.
>> or desire to play a video game.
>> It can go through the actions,
>> and make me believe it feels,
>> because someone has programmed it to do so.
>> But it does not feel.
>
>
> There is no such thing as 'persistence of consciouness'...

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

> 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.
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#631036

benj wrote:
> 
> On 4/27/2017 2:50 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Jonathan Doolin wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 6:40:02 PM UTC-5, benj wrote:
> >>> On 4/25/2017 5:53 PM, Ned Latham wrote:
> >>>> Thought is a function of Mind. If you wish to assert that Mind can
> >>>> exist apart from Brain, postulate it explicitly, and show cause to
> >>>> accept your postulate.
> >>>
> >>> I postulate it. Persistence of consciousness.
> >>>
> >>
> >> That's not much of a postulate.
> >> It's not even a complete sentence.
> >> And "persistence of consciousness"
> >> certainly doesn't clearly demonstrate
> >> that "mind can exist apart from brain."
> >>
> >> My computer shows persistence of memory
> >> but that's because it contains
> >> billions of memory cells
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_cell_(binary)
> >> INSIDE it.
> >>
> >> In the same way,
> >> I have persistence of consciousness
> >> because of internal memory.
> >>
> >> What the computer cannot do
> >> (I would postulate)
> >> is experience frustration, contentment, pain, or lust
> >> or experience the color of green or blue.
> >> or desire to play a video game.
> >> It can go through the actions,
> >> and make me believe it feels,
> >> because someone has programmed it to do so.
> >> But it does not feel.
> >
> >
> > There is no such thing as 'persistence of consciouness'...
> 
> And the way you know this is? Ah, Superpowers.
> 
> > 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.
> >



There is no proof that 'consciouness' exist.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#631062

The Starmaker wrote:

----snip----

> There is no proof that 'consciouness' exist.

Wrong. Cogito, ergo sum.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#631097

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



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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#631182

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

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

> You got two spoons in your mouth?

Do people get born any other way?

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

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#631013

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#631037

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 you people know this stuff?..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#631058

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web