It is currently Thu Oct 17, 2019 6:30 pm


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 9:25 am
Posts: 5298
I would consider that thoughts do not exist in the brain but are triggered by something to extract detail from your brain's store of information.
If this took between one nanosecond and one microsecond you might assume it was instantaneous but it would not be so.
My discussions so far with a psychologist do not lead me to consider thoughts are instantaneous, but a neuroscientist will probably have more knowledge about this point.

regards, David


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:46 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Posts: 4375
Location: Greenwich, London
Brian, until you define what a thought is, you can go saying that forever but I don't buy it. :wink:

And if thoughts are "beyond the light barrier" and are not physical then they have no relevance to the topic.

_________________
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 5:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:18 pm
Posts: 6501
Location: Manchester
Dear Brian et al
I was naffed off because I forgot to watch the wednesday TV prog "faster than light", although I am only mildly curious about the supposed discovery until it has been properly confirmed.
I saw Prof Jim Kahali (sorry if I mis-spelt his name) on TV at the time the initial tentative discovery was made. He joked that if the faster than light was subsequently confirmed he would eat his shorts on telly - I took his saying shorts to equate to underpants !
If I do see him eating his "shorts\underpants" on telly I might then take the faster than light discovery seriously.
Incidentally I too cann't accept Brian's idea that human thoughts travel faster than light.However, even my big head isn't big enough to measure the time my superhuman ideas might take to travel from one side of my head to the other to establish how quickly my thoughts are travelling, So I cann't give a definitive answer at the moment.
However, an old joke comes to mind -
"What size hat do you want Sir ?. Is it 6 &7\8th ?"
"Don't be silly. My shirts have a 17 inch collar and my head is bigger than my neck !".
My apology for that, from Cliff.

Best wishes from Cliff


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 10:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Posts: 5272
Location: Lancashire
:lol: :lol: :lol:

_________________
brian


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 7:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 9:25 am
Posts: 5298
Just had a half hour chat with neuoroscientist.
Nobody really knows what a thought is.
Nor whether it travels from the subconscious to the conscious before forming in the conscious brain. Or whether it first forms in the subconscious.
I was correct that a thought is a set, and there are many of these.
Brian is correct in one sense that a thought has no movement but it also has no speed so cannot be faster than the speed of light.
It is a question of phenomenology.
A concept is a thought.
There are many different types of thought.
This is more a concept of philosophy.
It is not a thought until it is a thought.
A thought has no history. It is only of now. THIS IS A KEY POINT.
It may be a broken thought.
However, in one sense thoughts are very slow. It takes three days for short term memory to travel to long term memory.
There is a change in neuro anatomy when you have a thought.
Thoughts are discussed in his work, but in relation to how thoughts influence and change people and what behaviour they cause.
There are some people who have no memory at all to all intents and purposes and this is one topic he is now involved in.
One can imagine the light travelling from Venus to us instantaneously but this does not mean the light itself is instantaneous.

I could not note all of this down, but basically a thought has no speed because there is no movement, and the actual concepts of thought are different to Brian than to some of the others discusssing this.
But this is a very complicated question.
Maybe on reflection this topic may come up again and I will ask him for any further views.

Thought is a physical phenomenon as well.

So you may be more enlightened by this or more probably not.

Regards, David


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 9:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Posts: 5272
Location: Lancashire
That's the point, David, that thought has no motion, so it's instantaneous. This means that it transcends the speed of light.
I can't agree with your description of thought as being "physical". Physical phenomena can be quantified, but how do we quantify a thought or any other mental process?
Thinking is, of course, dependent on a physical brain interacting with the sense-data entering it, but the mental phenomenon of thought itself has not proven to be either matter or energy.

_________________
brian


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:46 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Posts: 4375
Location: Greenwich, London
There are several issues here.

Is thought really instantaneous? How do you measure it or detect it? How do you define a thought in order to state it happens instantaneously? It obviously takes time to be conscious of having a thought so which part of it is instantaneous?

Finally, it's a complete red herring. If it's neither matter nor energy and has no motion how can it travel faster than light?

Irrelevant to the topic!

_________________
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 10:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Posts: 5272
Location: Lancashire
I'm not sure that we can analyse a "thought" in a reductionist way, Joe, because there's no way to quantify it. A thought is simply a thought, so it's irreducible.
In saying that thinking is faster than light, I meant that, although not travelling over any distance, a thought occurs quicker than the rate at which light travels.
Obviously, there's a physiological ( electro-chemical ) chain-of-events, as the brain interacts with the sense-data streaming into it that takes time, before the thought emerges instantaneously.

_________________
brian


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 10:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 9:25 am
Posts: 5298
I don't think one can equate a non moving event or phenomena with no speed to the speed that light travels.
Light travelling has a history until it stops on your retina and even here it takes time to travel through your retina until vanishing.
The neuroscientist says that a thought has no history and is only of now.
You are comparing an apple to a gorilla. They are different.

regards, David


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 11:03 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Posts: 4375
Location: Greenwich, London
But Brian, I'm wondering why you are confident that a thought is something that happens instantaneously. There are many things that appear to be something that they are not, most especially when we are refering to senses, consciousness and brain activity. Our brain tells us what we need to know not necessarily what is actually happening. I may say that a thought evolves over time and we respond to it during its evolution before it's even fully formed. It may be that once we become aware of the thought that it's packaged up nicely to appear as an instantaneous event.

And as David has just said, it's not even relevant to speed.

_________________
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 8:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Posts: 5272
Location: Lancashire
As David said, a thought is "now". For light to be "now" it travelled from somewhere else to get to where it is now.
I don't deny a physiological, time-related, chain-of-events leading up to the production of a thought, but thinking, as a mental phenomenon, is qualitatively different than the brain processes and sensory input to the brain that generates thought.
I stick to my guns that a thought occurs faster than the time it takes light to travel over any distance.

_________________
brian


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 9:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 9:25 am
Posts: 5298
Consider rather than an apple and a gorilla, a stationary painting of an apple and a gorilla charging at you.
The apple in the painting neglecting the atomic level has no speed. In fact the apple isn't there at all. The painting is not the apple. I am representing the painting as an analogy of a thought.
Now I may be mixing myself up with this analogy, but a thought is quite different to a particle or wave of light.
You cannot say that something that has no speed and in the case of a thought no history is quicker than a charging gorilla or the speed of light.
Something with no speed cannot be quicker than anything.
A thought is not a thought until it is a thought. It is not quicker than anything, as it is not moving and has no speed.

It is 3 or 4 to one against you Brian, plus a possibly more authoritative expert in the neuroscientist who explained carefully to me how you were mixing things up, but said quite plainly that we don't really know what a thought is, but still says you are wrong in maintaining that a thought which has no speed, and no history is quicker than the speed of light.

Just because it is about 5 to 1 against you does not mean you are wrong. But in our opinion your idea is not so.

Perhaps someone who has spent time on this subject in a research capacity can give an opinion and a better explanation than I am able to give as this is not a subject in which I am an expert .

Regards, David


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 7:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Posts: 5272
Location: Lancashire
As I said previously, David, mental phenomena are qualitatively different from physical phenomena, so "fast" for a thought doesn't involve motion over a distance as it does with physical matter. Thoughts simply occur.
The actual motion is in the electro-chemical processes of the brain and the sense-data entering the brain. The end result is psychical not physical, so we can't assess the former in terms of attributes of physical matter: speed, size, weight, etc.
I must admit that Joe could have a point when he says that we might only have an impression of rapidity of thinking when, in fact, a thought is a sort of gradual build-up ( ignoring the physical processes behind it ) that only gives the appearance of being an instantaneous happening. But where is the evidence for this?
Just for the record, it isn't my pet theory about thinking being instantaneous, hence, "faster" than light, I read it somewhere a while ago.

_________________
brian


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group