Originally posted by Dreampanther
Measuring the speed of electricity has nothing whatsoever to do with measuring the speed of thought. Go study a semester of scientific research.
Actually it kinda does. That's what thoughts are. Electrical impulses in the brain.
Unless you define thought as spiritual or something. Than that's something different.
And I don't like taking science classes unless I have to. Too much time commitment for labs.
Originally posted by Dreampanther
And am I the only one that consider this forum presumptuous in setting the speed of thought, when scientists have been struggling with this very concept since people first started thinking?
Yeah.
"Thought processes ARE electrical impulses through the brain."
Right. That's why computers are thinking, reasoning, creative beings, instead of just tools we created to help us in our evolution. Because that's all thoughts are - just "electrical impulses through the brain". Hey, that must be why shock therapy is so effective in creating super geniuses!
"Unless you define thought as spiritual or something. Than that's something different"
That is EXACTLY what I am arguing.
Originally posted by Dreampanther
"Thought processes ARE electrical impulses through the brain."Right. That's why computers are thinking, reasoning, creative beings, instead of just tools we created to help us in our evolution. Because that's all thoughts are - just "electrical impulses through the brain". Hey, that must be why shock therapy is so effective in creating super geniuses!
"Unless you define thought as spiritual or something. Than that's something different"
That is EXACTLY what I am arguing.
Ahh. So what's your "definition" of thought?
If you really want to take it THAT far into existentialism...
"Food"
"Urinate"
"Mate"
"Run"
What in the name of green little apples does instinct have to do with rational thought?
"If you define "thinking" as something other than linguistics and mathematics"
I must be in a nightmare. That is the only explanation I can think of, for somebody implying thought is not necessary for mathemathics, or linguistics, or any of the other natural or social sciences
Originally posted by Dreampanther
"Food""Urinate"
"Mate"
"Run"
What in the name of green little apples does instinct have to do with rational thought?
"If you define "thinking" as something other than linguistics and mathematics"
I must be in a nightmare. That is the only explanation I can think of, for somebody implying thought is not necessary for mathemathics, or linguistics, or any of the other natural or social sciences
Key word: RATIONAL
You said thought. Not rational. Thoughts and instincts are often interchangable.
If you said Rational thought I would have said nothing. But thought? That's a different angle.
And you're making this far too complicated that it should be. You would find yourself far better suited in the Philosophy forum since you kinda wasted all our time by arguing the philosophical implications of human thought.
My definition of thought? I have been struggling with this concept for years, since my first philosophy class (which I failed, by the way. Twice). 😛
But I do know it is not instinct, nor reaction. You might as well ask me where does inspiration come from.
All I know is that we are not mere matter, we are not just "electrical impulses going through the brain". We are thinking, feeling, creative, destructive, emotional, rational, playful, warlike, loving, hating beings, with the capacity to be gods ourselves, if we work together, instead of against each other.
And nobody, NOBODY, should ever stop thinking, because thought is the only thing that separates us from the animals, who, as I said, if it wasn't for our ability to think, would rule the earth.
We are the weakest of all animals, yet we rule this world. Why?
Think about it.
And I don't mean react about it. Or instinct about it.
Oh, and as for separating rational from thought? That is YOUR distinction. MY distinction is between thought and instinct, or thought and reaction.
Thought implies rationality.
And I DO spend time on the philosophy forum. But when somebody said Superman is faster than the speed of thought, I lost my nut. In a debate you should say what you mean and mean what you say, AND KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!
Besides, I like to argue. 😈
That's all nice. Too bad I kinda don't care. Philosophy is buncha of bull in my opinion.
As I said it really has no place here. Philosophic thoughts are nowhere to be found. We all rely on science and feats.
And I passed my first philosophy class with a B. And I HATED it. The professor was SO stuck-up.
Curiousity. A search for understanding in this world. All of which may be called the common traits of philosophy, that may be true. However as I said taoism and Zen like thinking has no place here. It certainly help you win any arguement here. It's pure and utter violence.
You kinda did waste our time. We were discussing how Superman could and would defeat a foe. How. What. And When.
But suddenly the arguement for what thought should be defined as came on this board when it clearly has no place here.
Your statements were interesting. Though full of ego and harsh belittlement.
Originally posted by DreampantherAnother non-sequiter. .
"Thought processes ARE electrical impulses through the brain."Right. That's why computers are thinking, reasoning, creative beings, instead of just tools we created to help us in our evolution. Because that's all thoughts are - just "electrical impulses through the brain". Hey, that must be why shock therapy is so effective in creating super geniuses!
"Unless you define thought as spiritual or something. Than that's something different"
That is EXACTLY what I am arguing.
All thoughts are electrical impulses, but not all electrical impulses are thought.
Originally posted by Draco69
Curiousity. A search for understanding in this world. All of which may be called the common traits of philosophy, that may be true. However as I said taoism and Zen like thinking has no place here. It certainly help you win any arguement here. It's pure and utter violence.You kinda did waste our time. We were discussing how Superman could and would defeat a foe. How. What. And When.
But suddenly the arguement for what thought should be defined as came on this board when it clearly has no place here.
Your statements were interesting. Though full of ego and harsh belittlement.
Sorry for the harshness, belittlement and ego. About the ego I can do nothing, I'm afraid, I am a legend in my own mind, after all 😛
As for the harshness, again my apologies, I debate/argue/analyse for a living, and yes, I do tend to come down hard on weaknesses in arguments, that's what I get paid for.
But the debate got sidetracked when somebody claimed Superman was faster than the speed of thought. I just responded. I have very little tolerance for ignorance. Sorry again. 😉