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

#630374

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

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

Sylvia.

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

#630375

Dne 24/04/2017 v 08:55 Sylvia Else napsal(a):
> On 23/04/2017 4:37 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> The Speed of Thought
>>
>>
>> I don't think you girls have even begun to measure it correctly.
>>
> 
> I don't think you've even begun to define it correctly.
> 
> Sylvia.

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

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

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

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

#630442

Poutnik wrote:

>> I don't think you've even begun to define it correctly. Sylvia.
> 
> Less the people know, the more they think women must be even worse in
> that.

Why not?

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

#630426

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


You want definitions, you get out your dictionary.


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


or smoke signals.

Or your local post office...



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


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


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


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

we are all that is left.

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

#630431

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


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


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

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

#630515

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

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

Sylvia.

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

#630537

Sylvia Else wrote:
> 
> On 25/04/2017 2:42 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>
> >> On 23/04/2017 4:37 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> The Speed of Thought
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I don't think you girls have even begun to measure it correctly.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I don't think you've even begun to define it correctly.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> >
> > You want definitions, you get out your dictionary.
> >
> >
> > Simply put, 'thought' traveling.. is not confined to neurons,
> > telephone wires or satelites....
> >
> >
> > or smoke signals.
> >
> > Or your local post office...
> >
> >
> >
> > neurons, telephone wires and satelites are all carriers
> > of...thought.
> >
> >
> > I think it's fair to say Thought travels faster than the speed of
> > light simply because information wishes to be free and not confined
> > to any fixed numbers or carriers.
> 
> It's not very useful to define the speed of thought as being the speed
> at which a notion can be conveyed by any means whatsoever. For long
> distances, the maximum speed approaches that of light because the time
> taken by processes at either end becomes negligible compared with the
> time spent travelling at the speed of light.
> 
> Sylvia.

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

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

#630539

On 25/04/2017 5:16 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>> On 25/04/2017 2:42 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 23/04/2017 4:37 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>> The Speed of Thought
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think you girls have even begun to measure it correctly.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't think you've even begun to define it correctly.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>>
>>> You want definitions, you get out your dictionary.
>>>
>>>
>>> Simply put, 'thought' traveling.. is not confined to neurons,
>>> telephone wires or satelites....
>>>
>>>
>>> or smoke signals.
>>>
>>> Or your local post office...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> neurons, telephone wires and satelites are all carriers
>>> of...thought.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think it's fair to say Thought travels faster than the speed of
>>> light simply because information wishes to be free and not confined
>>> to any fixed numbers or carriers.
>>
>> It's not very useful to define the speed of thought as being the speed
>> at which a notion can be conveyed by any means whatsoever. For long
>> distances, the maximum speed approaches that of light because the time
>> taken by processes at either end becomes negligible compared with the
>> time spent travelling at the speed of light.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Thought has no connection to the speed of light. Consider it...a "spooky
> action at a distance".
>

You have no evidence of that.

Sylvia.

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

#630920

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

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

#631014

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

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

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

#631022

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



I didn't translate it into text...

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

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

#631060

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

Someone did.

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

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

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

#631093

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

it first translated into zeros and ones..

i thought you people know this stuff..

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

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

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

#631171

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

Irrelevant.

> i thought you people know this stuff..

You "thought". LOL.

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

You needed *help*? Sheesh.

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

#630621

On 4/24/2017 10:03 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 25/04/2017 2:42 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>
>>> On 23/04/2017 4:37 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>> The Speed of Thought
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't think you girls have even begun to measure it correctly.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think you've even begun to define it correctly.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>>
>> You want definitions, you get out your dictionary.
>>
>>
>> Simply put, 'thought' traveling.. is not confined to neurons,
>> telephone wires or satelites....
>>
>>
>> or smoke signals.
>>
>> Or your local post office...
>>
>>
>>
>> neurons, telephone wires and satelites are all carriers
>> of...thought.
>>
>>
>> I think it's fair to say Thought travels faster than the speed of
>> light simply because information wishes to be free and not confined
>> to any fixed numbers or carriers.
>
> It's not very useful to define the speed of thought as being the speed
> at which a notion can be conveyed by any means whatsoever. For long
> distances, the maximum speed approaches that of light because the time
> taken by processes at either end becomes negligible compared with the
> time spent travelling at the speed of light.
>
> Sylvia.
You need to think about this a bit more, sylvia. While obviously the 
transmission speed of "thoughts" in organism is slow as determined by 
action potential timing and other factors. But that does not consider 
the OTHER question which would be given an ESP "remote viewing" is the 
speed of transmission of information limited by the speed of light. 
There are a number of indications and reports that might seem to 
indicate it is not, but there are additional problems in that there 
seems to be a certain looseness to time which could mean that 
transmissions are at c but you are sensing the future so there is the 
appearance of FTL transmissions. This is real science thought unlike all 
the religious atheist clowns here who are all convinced that thoughts 
occur ONLY within the brain cells. Feh.

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

#630636

benj wrote:

----snip----

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

Rubbish.

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

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

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

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

#630675

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

Obvious science jargon.

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

I postulate it. Persistence of consciousness.

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

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

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

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

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

#630702

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

It translates into the English term "rubbish".

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

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

> > Note too that Einstein et al notwithstanding, time is a noumewnon,
> > not a phenomenon; it is entirely in the mind of man.
>
> And the way you know this is?

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

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

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

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

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

You're not.

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

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

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

If you wush to assert that consciousness moves, postulate it
explicitly, and show cause to accept your postulate.

Ned. 

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

#630731

How big is an idea?

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

#630765

For instance- the idea of the wheel.
If you had an infinitely-small blackboard,
with a wheel on it, and an infinitely-small
person saw it, would the idea be the same?

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

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

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web