Value of Thought

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Not sure what you're trying to drive at here.

I thought it was obvious, but it turns out you are confused. Very very confused.

If the shortest distance between two points is a straight line,
With proper understanding of what a 'straight line' constitutes. In fact it is usually defined as the shortest distance rather than being a claim.

how would it be shorter to go to Alaska diverting from a tack between Taiwan and Los Angeles?
Why would it not? Draw a straight line from almost anywhere on the route and it will be the shorter distance. What is more, you claimed that it would be longer than the Taiwan - Los Angeles distance which makes no sense at all.

Taiwan and LAX are within six degrees of each other, so very nearly a straight shot, east to west.
Not on anything other than some map projections, and not on the flat earther map we looked at.

Alaska is thirty-six degrees above Taiwan, twenty-eight degrees above LAX--- a huge divergence from the straight shot.
Straight shot from where to where? You seem confused. Do you seriously think that increasing the angle changes the travel time?

Always the pessimist, never the realist.
If you think the nonsense you just came up with is realism, then you need to see a psychiatrist now.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
He said 'empirical' which implies observation of results, does it not? That's not the same as just-rational-thought.

Indeed. Rational, in this context, means making correct deductions from given information. Rational is not the same as right (the information can be wrong); it is not the same as empirical, it is easy to make idiotically incorrect deductions from good empirical data. Rational here just means logical. I don't think religions are automatically illogical, it's just the case that most religions make claims that are unsupported by empirical information.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I don't think religions are automatically illogical,

Neither do I. What I said was that they could not be supported ie an adherent does not expect to be able to demonstrate the validity of his beliefs (logically sound or not) to a non-adherent and equally a non-adherent doesn't expect to be persuaded via logical argument (presumably taking empirical evidence into account).

In some sciences and not-so-much sciences such as economics, there are 'schools of thought'. But we don't call them religions until someone holds on to claims that fit the description I gave above.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I thought it was obvious, but it turns out you are confused. Very very confused.

[b]If the shortest distance between two points is a straight line,
With proper understanding of what a 'straight line' constitutes. In fact it is usually defined as the shortest distance rather than being a claim.

how would it be shorter to go to Alaska divertin ...[text shortened]... ou think the nonsense you just came up with is realism, then you need to see a psychiatrist now.

I thought it was obvious, but it turns out you are confused. Very very confused.
Well, of course I am!
How else could you look rational without me being confused?

In fact it is usually defined as the shortest distance rather than being a claim.
That is totally a sentence.
And that's about all we can say about it.

Draw a straight line from almost anywhere on the route and it will be the shorter distance.
Good thing you qualified that one!

What is more, you claimed that it would be longer than the Taiwan - Los Angeles distance which makes no sense at all.
At what point then, Magellan, does the Taiwan to LAX become the shorter distance, given that the divergence from the originating line becomes greater than the difference between the two cities?

Not on anything other than some map projections, and not on the flat earther map we looked at.
WTF does that mean?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Thought takes as forward as a species and will inevitably enable us to outwit future alien invasion. (8th June 2089).

Without thought progress is impossible.

"Without thought progress is impossible."

Without thought reason is impossible.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Taiwan and LAX are within six degrees of each other, so very nearly a straight shot, east to west.
?

Do you believe the shortest distance between two
places with the same latitude is due East or due West?

Only works for the Equator.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
At what point then, Magellan, does the Taiwan to LAX become the shorter distance, given that the divergence from the originating line becomes greater than the difference between the two cities?

Taiwan to LAX is never, was never, and never will be, the shorter distance. You are confused. Very very confused.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"Without thought progress is impossible."

Without thought reason is impossible.[/b]

Without thought, remembering your aunt's birthday is impossible. (Believe me).

Welcome back.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Without thought, remembering your aunt's birthday is impossible. (Believe me).

Welcome back.

Hey ghost. Not to disappoint you, but I'm not really back. Thought (thinking) is an amazing thing, so I grabbed your comment and ran with it.

A further thought about thought, (and not to presuppose I know much about it) but it seems logical to me that without reason and meaning thought would not exist. Just a fundamental premise I think.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
There is an obvious battle of thought evident in the world today, and this forum is but a microcosm of that fight.

This reality, however, does not address the underlying question: [b]why does a person's thoughts matter?

Even this question requires further clarification and articulation, as it is evident how some thought-inspired actions are conne ...[text shortened]... ctical applications to a person's life would be altered by a belief on such a topic, either way?[/b]

Why does a person's thought matter? Because there is this attribute called creativity, sometimes people come up with good thoughts that have never been thought before and that thought changes things for everyone for the better. If a musician thinks of a new tune, a new song, a new symphony, the world appreciates it because it is new and nobody else ever thought that way.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Why does a person's thought matter? Because there is this attribute called creativity, sometimes people come up with good thoughts that have never been thought before and that thought changes things for everyone for the better. If a musician thinks of a new tune, a new song, a new symphony, the world appreciates it because it is new and nobody else ever thought that way.

Do you think/believe that creativity, as an attribute, is a result/consequence of our ability to think?

Then isn't thinking an indication of conscientiousness which gives us the ability to appreciate the creative process, and the thing created, whether it be an idea or a poem or a work of Art?

Then isn't conscientiousness intrinsic to assigning value and worth to the thing created?

Is thought and conscientiousness merely two aspects of the same thing? Isn't thought then the evidence for the awareness of self-existence?

Originally posted by josephw
Is thought and conscientiousness merely two aspects of the same thing? Isn't thought then the evidence for the awareness of self-existence?

Conciousness is the state of being able to observe thought, and the illusion of controlling said thought.
I would say that even an insect can think. I am less inclined to believe an insect is concious.
I must also point out that most of our thoughts go unobserved by our conciousness. One could I suppose differentiate between concious and unconscious thought and name only concious thought 'thought'.
I touch type. I do not consciously think which fingers to move or which button to press on the keyboard. I think the word and it appears on screen. Is it thinking when my fingers manage to spell out the correct words?

Originally posted by twhitehead also to josephw
Conciousness is the state of being able to observe thought, and the illusion of controlling said thought.
I would say that even an insect can think. I am less inclined to believe an insect is concious.
I must also point out that most of our thoughts go unobserved by our conciousness. One could I suppose differentiate between concious and ...[text shortened]... and it appears on screen. Is it thinking when my fingers manage to spell out the correct words?

Language is pretty important in this. We tend to talk about "imagining" smells, or "picturing" scenes. When we talk about thinking we tend to mean something verbal - a string of words - it's an extension of imagining a sound. Now an animal can imagine making some kind of call and getting an outcome, I'm pretty sure most mammals can do that. I think there's two meaning of thought, one is just cognitive activity for problem solving which pretty much most vertebrates can do and I think includes twhitehead's ant, the other requires language and animal language is very minimal. I don't think we quite agree on what consciousness is. I think mammals at least are self-aware, they're capable of reflection. With ants you'd need to be looking at the level of the hive. It's just we can cope with much higher levels of abstraction, but I think that's thought rather than consciousness.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Conciousness is the state of being able to observe thought, and the illusion of controlling said thought.
I would say that even an insect can think. I am less inclined to believe an insect is concious.
I must also point out that most of our thoughts go unobserved by our conciousness. One could I suppose differentiate between concious and unconscious tho ...[text shortened]... and it appears on screen. Is it thinking when my fingers manage to spell out the correct words?

Why do you assume he meant "consciousness" when what he said was "conscientiousness". He even said it more than once. Granted, the difference is subtle, but not nonexistent.

Is it thinking when my fingers manage to spell out the correct words?
Maybe, maybe not, considering you managed to misspell the same word multiple times.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Calling any example of "suppressed thought" a religion seems insulting. What also seems clear is that you don't fully understand religion.

In your haste to denigrate those who adhere to a religion, you also fail to notice that this is exactly the same thing as insulting someone based on race, color, gender or sexual preference. This is called bias, and is generally considered improper in civilized society.

There are religions that try to suppress thoughts on sex, both straight and gay.

You MUST only use sex for procreation, I believe Dasa said and that is in many religions.

That is a prime example of the attempt to suppress thought.