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 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

#631094

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.

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

#631175

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.

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

#631255

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?

When did the idea came to you??


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

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

#632002

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]

#630916

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


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

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

#630950

On 4/27/2017 2:41 PM, The Starmaker 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.
>>
>> Thought is a function of Mind. If you wish to assert that Mind can
>> exist apart from Brain, postulate it explicitly, and show cause to
>> accept your postulate.
>
>
> Thought is not a function of the mind...it is a product of the brain.
> It's information...processed by a brain.
>
And the way you know that thought is purely biological is?

Ah, Superpowers.

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

#631035

benj wrote:
> 
> On 4/27/2017 2:41 PM, The Starmaker 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.
> >>
> >> Thought is a function of Mind. If you wish to assert that Mind can
> >> exist apart from Brain, postulate it explicitly, and show cause to
> >> accept your postulate.
> >
> >
> > Thought is not a function of the mind...it is a product of the brain.
> > It's information...processed by a brain.
> >
> And the way you know that thought is purely biological is?
> 
> Ah, Superpowers.

Thought is physics, not philosophy.

You don't put philosophy throught telephone lines..

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

#631061

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

----snip----

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

Wrong.

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

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

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

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

> Thought is physics, not philosophy.
>
> You don't put philosophy through telephone lines..

Same goes for physics.

What you put through telephone lines is information.

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

#631096

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


you british have thing thing all backwards...


put some ice in your water.

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

#631179

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

I'm not British.

> put some ice in your water.

Have to melt some ice first.

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

#630391

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

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

#630435

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

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

This is strong indication that there no such _gods_ :)

F'up2 rec.arts.sf.written

-- 
PointedEars

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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web