Just How Fast is the Speed of Thought?

Faster than a locomotive, faster than a speeding bullet, able to jump tall buildings in a single bound. Look! It's a plane...no, it's a bird...no it's thought!

Just how fast is the speed of thought? Is it measurable, or is it instantaneous? If it is measurable, doesn't this suggest that thought is not at all instantaneous? After all, it's not as if an instant is measurable, is it? An instant is that which happens without delay. Wouldn't it be necessary for there to be a delay in order for it to be measurable? At least this is if we are to use time as the standard by which we measure speed. Time is the measurement we use to determine the duration of an event, or it is used to tell us when that event happened. In terms of speed, we use time to determine how long something took to travel from point A to point B. Herein lies just one of the problems with measuring thought. What would be point A of thought, and where would point B be in the culmination of that thought?

Some would claim that science is able to measure thought, but this is a dubious claim, more akin to the braggadocio found in many rap songs than supportable by verifiable evidence. Even so, the claim gets made. Take, for example, an article published by Discover Magazine in 2009, titled; The Brain: What is the Speed of Thought?

The notion that the speed of thought could be measured, just like the density of a rock, was shocking. Yet that is exactly what scientists did. In 1850 German physiologist Hermann von Helmholtz attached wires to a frog’s leg muscle so that when the muscle contracted it broke a circuit. He found that it took a tenth of a second for a signal to travel down the nerve to the muscle. In another experiment he applied a mild shock to people’s skin and had them gesture as soon as they felt it. It took time for signals to travel down human nerves, too. In fact, Helmholtz discovered it took longer for people to respond to a shock in the toe than to one at the base of the spine because the path to the brain was longer.

What is interesting about this claim is that thought is associated with nerve responses. Thus reactions are what are being measured. It is a magicians sleight of hand to use various do dads and gee gaws that light up and look as if they are working some sort of scientific magic in order to convince people that a knee jerk reaction is actually thought. Presto Zesto it's magic!

Helmholtz’s results clashed with people’s gut instinct that they experienced the world as it happened, with no lag between sensation and awareness. “This is altogether a delusion,” German physiologist Emil Du Bois-Reymond declared in 1868. “It appears that ‘quick as thought’ is, after all, not so very quick.”

With their simple tools, Helmholtz and others could manage only crude measures of the speed of thought. Some of them came up with rates that were twice as fast as others. Researchers have been trying to get more precise results ever since. Today it is clear why they have had such a hard time. Our nerves operate at many different speeds, reflecting the biological challenges of wiring all the parts of the body together. In some ways evolution has fine-tuned our brains to run like a digital superhighway, but in other ways it has left us with a Pony Express.

Ah! So, according to the Discover Magazine article, the problem in measuring the speed of thought precisely was not in the premise that thought is generated by nerves, but lied in the primitive nature of the do dads and gee gaws, and that nerves travel at various speeds. Hmmmmm....

In one common experiment for studying the speed of thought, researchers briefly show test subjects a lopsided, upside-down U and then ask them which leg of the figure is longer. It turns out that the subjects’ reaction times say a lot about their lives in general. People with faster responses tend to score higher on intelligence tests. Some psychologists have argued that a high processing speed in the brain is a vital ingredient for intelligence. Responses slow down when people suffer certain psychological disorders like depression. More puzzling, people with sluggish reaction times are more likely to die of incidents like strokes or heart attacks.

Is it really all that puzzling that people with sluggish reaction times are more likely to die of incidents like strokes or heart attacks? Wouldn't a sluggish reaction time indicate a physical problem? More importantly, what does this have to do with thought? Of course, the experiment cited above also indicates that people with faster responses tend to score higher on intelligence tests, but does this somehow prove that thought is a manifestation of the brain? Isn't it at all possible that the brain merely facilitates thought in the same way a computer facilitates programs? It would make sense that the brain needs to process data at high speeds in order to facilitate intelligence, but what doesn't make sense is that because of this thought is considered to be a physical phenomenon.

Staying with the computer analogy, it is not as if we consider computer programs to be an inherent physicality of computers. We understand that the programs are written by some agent outside of the computer itself...at least not yet. Perhaps computers will get to a point where they can write their own programming, but if they do, who wrote the original program to facilitate this? Of course, this involves Artificial Intelligence as opposed to the natural intelligence of living beings. For the time being, and for all intents and purposes, a computers thought comes from somewhere outside of the computer itself.

Now, it is understood that a computer is artificial and quite probably an unreasonable comparison to thought and the human body.

In principle, our thoughts could race far more efficiently if all the axons in our brains were thick. But the human brain has at least a quarter of a million miles of wiring—more than enough to reach from Earth to the moon—and is already packed tight. Sam Wang, a Princeton University neuroscientist, calculated how big our brain would be if it were built with thick axons. “Making an entire brain out of them would create heads so large that we couldn’t fit through doorways,” he concluded. Such a brain would also consume a tremendous amount of energy.

In the final paragraph of the Discover Magazine article we are treated to a ridiculously absurd statement, by a neuroscientist no less, where he suggests that if our brains were as big as necessary to facilitate more efficient thought they "couldn't fit through doorways". Apparently Sam Wang, the Princeton neuroscientist, has a pea brain and it hasn't occurred to him that if we did have bigger brains that facilitate more efficient thought that we would, more than likely, build bigger doorways. Presumably, being a Princeton neuroscientist, Mr. Wang has passed some intelligent tests in his day, and yet, look how stupid he can come off as! Was it the brain that facilitated this stupidity, or was it something else entirely?

While it is funny, even hysterical, to imagine highly intelligent big brained humans confounded by doorways they can't pass through, constantly butting against the door frames, and even getting stuck in the door jambs, it is unreasonable to accept that this would actually be the case, and of course, it should be assumed, giving Wang the Princeton neuroscientist the benefit of the doubt, that he was merely attempting to indicate how big our heads would be if the axons in our brain were thicker, but even so, it does give us a clue as to how stupid highly intelligent people can be, and conversely, there is plenty of evidence to suggest those who do not fare so well on intelligent tests have a wisdom about them that would put a roomful of neuroscientists to shame.

The problem remains that there does not seem to be enough evidence to support the assumption that thought is merely a manifestation of the brain. Consider a study published by the Journal of Scientific Exploration, titled:

The Speed of Thought: Investigation of a Complex Space-Time Metric to Describe Psychic Phenomenon

For more than 100 years scientists have attempted to determine the truth or falsity of claims that some people are able to describe and experience events or information blocked from ordinary perception. For the past 25 years, the authors of this paper—together with researchers in laboratories around the world—have carried out experiments in remote viewing. The evidence for this mode of perception, or direct knowing of distant events and objects, has convinced us of the validity of these claims. It has been widely observed that the accuracy and reliability of this sensory awareness do not diminish with either electromagnetic shielding, or with increases in temporal or spatial separation between the percipient and the target to be described. Modern physics describes such a time and space independent connection between percipient and target as nonlocal.

For more than 100 years scientists have attempted to determine the truth or falsity of claims that some people are able to describe and experience events or information blocked from ordinary perception. For the past 25 years, the authors of this paper—together with researchers in laboratories around the world—have carried out experiments in remote viewing. The evidence for this mode of perception, or direct knowing of distant events and objects, has convinced us of the validity of these claims. It has been widely observed that the accuracy and reliability of this sensory awareness do not diminish with either electromagnetic shielding, or with increases in temporal or spatial separation between the percipient and the target to be described. Modern physics describes such a time and space independent connection between percipient and target as nonlocal.

While this study is concerned with ESP, it surely includes thought within that concern, and it is interesting that because the study is concerned with ESP that in terms of measurement they are at least willing to consider zero distance between points, which radically changes the way thought would be measured, if it can be measured at all.

For example, our model is in good agreement with the ideas presented in the recent physics book The Nonlocal Universe, where we read, “…the universe on a very basic level could be a vast web of particles, which remain in contact with one another over any distance, [and] in no time” (Stapp, 1999).

Unable to find any book titled The Non Local Universe by Henry P. Stapp, I was able to find a book by that title written by Robert Nadeau and Menas Kafatos. For those interested, here is a link that allows you to download a free e-book. Here is just a taste of what these authors claim:

...even if experiments could somehow be conducted in which the distance between the detectors was halfway across the known universe, the results would indicate that interaction or communication between the photons would be instantaneous...

Instantaneous interaction between photons! What Einstein sarcastically called "spooky action at a distance". If photons are capable of interacting instantaneously, why then couldn't thought itself be instantaneous? There seems to be two camps regarding thought; those who view thought as a physical manifestation of the brain, and those who view thought as a separate entity existing outside of the physical body. It is interesting to note that those scientists who assume thought is merely a physical manifestation, when attempting to measure this thought, reduce thought itself down to reaction time. Reaction seems to be inherently physical, but thought not necessarily so.

Whether thought is actually a manifestation of the brain, or it be something else, it is the speed of thought that has me so intrigued. Even so, it is difficult to accept scientists claims that thoughts can be measured simply by pretending that all thought is equivalent to reaction time as valid. Perhaps it is the case, and I just have a difficult time accepting it, or perhaps it is not the case and those scientists going down this road have a difficult time accepting that there are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dream't of in their philosophies.

I think that the mechanism of our nervous system is NOT the only thing that generates our thoughts.

From history, it seems that breakthroughs come in bunches and not always due to the propogation of knowledge.

I believe that Jung referred to it as the "collective unconcious" which he held as a metaphysical link between minds. Like we all pick up signals from a spiritual mind to which we all contribute.

Perhaps, if we look at the impulses from our brain, the thoughts are perpetually "there" - that is, occuring continuously. When we have a thought, we are simply observing one of the myriad of thoughts that are occuring.

what is the speed of deja vu?

there is evidence that the mind works via a functional deja vu mechanism.

most people would think that you first recognize something, and then remember it.....however, it has been found that memory is triggered first, and recognition 50 milliseconds afterward.

Scientific Understanding and Mathematical Modeling of Emotions of the Spiritually Sublime
Leonid I. Perlovsky
LINK

Bar et al concentrated on three brain areas: visual cortex, object recognition area, and long-term object-information storage area (memory). They demonstrated that memory is activated 130 ms after the visual cortex, but 50 ms before the object recognition area. This confirmed that memory of an object is activated before the object is recognized.

how to you measure 2+2, since the answer is a thought in your head and has no distance to travel or reaction time to measure.

plus, i think thought is infinite and is only limited by our physical body. that is why steroids benefit professional athletes.

that's why great coaches don't necessarily have to be former great players. they can play the game great in their heads but they lack the sufficient physical talent to accomplish it and transfer it to the real world.

i have fingers but i don't play the piano as great as mozart. it is much harder to learn and perceive a task correctly or a game and do it greatly than it is to train your body to do it.

that's why when professional athletes say their game is 90% mental, it's that mental aspect that separates greatness.

Thought is instant...

...and travels across the universe just that quickly.


I come from metaphysical and first hand experience, you can toss the rest out the window. Despite what research is being done, or admitted publicly... you can bet much more advanced forms are well known, demonstrated, and used extensively behind the scenes. After all, some of the most advanced technology in the universe is being used on this planet to keep the human race in bondage. Telepathic channelings and mental manipulation are one facet of that. Did I get off topic? Oh well... Peace.

reply to post by tgidkp

Bar et al concentrated on three brain areas: visual cortex, object recognition area, and long-term object-information storage area (memory). They demonstrated that memory is activated 130 ms after the visual cortex, but 50 ms before the object recognition area. This confirmed that memory of an object is activated before the object is recognized.

Interestingly, this memory being activated before recognition of it is still a physical phenomenon. It is also interesting that mind and brain are counted as equivalent. While recognition certainly constitute thought, is all thought nothing more than recognition? If Vadim Kotelnikov is to be taken seriously, at least regarding the brain, then consider what he has to say about it:

Your Brain Can Process Only Positive Information The language of brain are pictures, sounds, feelings, tastes and smells, i.e. inputs from your senses. Your brain cannot work with negative information, i.e. inputs you haven't experienced. It can work only with positive information, i.e. "information from the experiences of your five senses, which it then manipulates in the emotional blender we call the imagination.

So, according to this, our thoughts are a manifestation of our physical senses, and the imagination is an "emotional blender".

Can You Reflect and Act at the Same Time? Well... sort of. Reflecting and acting at the same time is very difficult as our mind can only hold one thought at a time. You can be going through periods of reflection and action at the same time but at any specific moment in time you are only spending energy in one of these two areas. You need to be focused on either reflection or action at one point and then be able to switch quickly and effortlessly to the other polarity when required. This is an important point to remember when you are considering focus and balance your life.

Is it truly "very difficult" to hold more than one thought at a time? If this is the case, how can we listen to someone who is boring us to tears, and yet fully understand every word that person is using to bore us to tears with while fully cognizant of the fact that we are bored to tears? Doesn't it require thought to process what is being said while we are thinking of how bored with what is being said and the multitude of thoughts that come with being bored? Or, do I merely perceive that there are a multitude of thoughts happening at once but the reality is that each thought is happening separately in a singular measurement of time? Hmmmmmm...

Research on brain theory helps you understand why some people are excellent inventors but poor producers or good managers but weak leaders. The research indicates that the brain is divided into two hemispheres, the left and the right, and that each hemisphere specializes in different functions, processes different kinds of information, and deals with different kinds of problems. The left brain works more with logic and analysis, the right works more with emotions and imagination.

And yet, Henry Ford was an excellent inventor and an excellent mass producer, and Thomas Edison is considered to be one of the greatest inventors of all time, and of course, he was a hugely successful business man who arguably was a great leader and manager.

Further, if we are to accept that thoughts are the consequence of the brain, how does this account for the claim that; Plants 'can think and remember'?

Plants, scientists say, transmit information about light intensity and quality from leaf to leaf in a very similar way to our own nervous systems. These "electro-chemical signals" are carried by cells that act as "nerves" of the plants.

We do not normally think of plants as having brains. Yet, if this article is to be taken seriously then we must either start looking for that place in a plant where there brain exists, or possibly consider thinking outside of the brain, as it were.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
...While recognition certainly constitute thought, is all thought nothing more than recognition?

from the article posted: yes. and i would tend to agree. it is a multiply by dividing (or vice versa) sorta thing.

it reminds me of the story of the american indians on the shoreline at chris columbus' arrival. as the story goes, they couldnt see the ships because they had no categorical reference for them.

likewise, i think that all thought processes must be referenced backward....back in time...back to the very first indivisible whole unit. and thus recognition of an object requires the invocation of a memory of a previous similar object. so, yeah, i guess i am agreeing with the argument that *thought* and *time* go hand in hand.

the moment of apprehension (aha!), however, is timeless. and a shocking amount of information can be downloaded into a brain (from the cosmos?) at any single instant).

...Doesn't it require thought to process what is being said while we are thinking of how bored with what is being said and the multitude of thoughts that come with being bored?

this, again, is apprehension vs. thought. i really see them as two different things. the founder of modern hypnosis, Milton Erickson, has worked very effectively with the notion of apprehension. he used the The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two as the basis of all his hypnotic methods.

...Plants 'can think and remember'?...

i once, under the influence of a plant, had the crazy idea that "any static within a given local environment constitutes a 'mind'". using this definition, you can look around you and see all of the information, and information-processing, that is contained in the static objects around you.

it is the static which does the processing. all statics are relevant only in relation to other statics of similar size and type. likewise, all minds are only relevant with relation to other minds of similar size and type.

just like einstein said: stillness and motion are relative. from one perspective, you have a static. from another perspective, you have a motion. what you are looking for IRT the root of consciousness is, i think, the moving part and not the static part. does that make any sense?

reply to post by tgidkp

it reminds me of the story of the american indians on the shoreline at chris columbus' arrival. as the story goes, they couldnt see the ships because they had no categorical reference for them.

Of course, before the first ship, or boat was made there was no categorical reference for them then either, and yet someone had the vision to "see" a boat in their imagination and build it.

likewise, i think that all thought processes must be referenced backward....back in time...back to the very first indivisible whole unit. and thus recognition of an object requires the invocation of a memory of a previous similar object. so, yeah, i guess i am agreeing with the argument that *thought* and *time* go hand in hand.

Recognition of an object is memory, this we agree on, but what we seem to disagree on, and I am not sure of this, is that all thoughts are memories of one sort or another. I think, staying with the guy who first invented the boat, that it is quite possible that this guy either saw a piece of wood floating on water and imagined a boat, or maybe found himself a sea and managed to survive by clinging to a piece of wood and from this imagined a boat, and in this regard, memory certainly comes into play, but it also strikes me that it is more than just memory at play when it comes to imagining a boat which is why when Kotelnikov attempts to explain the imagination he is stuck with the unfortunate image of an "emotional blender".

the moment of apprehension (aha!), however, is timeless. and a shocking amount of information can be downloaded into a brain (from the cosmos?) at any single instant).

I am not clear what you mean by apprehension but am assuming you mean the ability to understand, which I am pretty sure is what you meant by your parenthetical "aha!" I guess what is confusing me is your assertion that a shocking amount of information can be downloaded into a brain at any single instant. You parenthetically ask if this download comes from the cosmos, and perhaps it does, but what confuses me is that you are seemingly separating thought from understanding.

this, again, is apprehension vs. thought. i really see them as two different things. the founder of modern hypnosis, Milton Erickson, has worked very effectively with the notion of apprehension. he used the The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two as the basis of all his hypnotic methods.

I did a brief search of Erickson and apprehension, and while much more time is needed to read through many of the sites - the speed of thought moves much quicker than I read - I did find this interesting site. I don't know how much this site has to do with Erickson directly, but it is a site that clearly believes there is a universal consciousness. Interestingly, the authors of the book I linked early; The Non Local Universe disagree with this assessment and find it an unreasonable belief.

it is the static which does the processing. all statics are relevant only in relation to other statics of similar size and type. likewise, all minds are only relevant with relation to other minds of similar size and type.

I am not so sure and even though the scientific community as a whole doesn't take the Backster effect seriously, the scientific community doesn't take a lot of things seriously that they arguably should. At any rate, there seems to be, at the very least, anecdotal evidence to suggest that people that talk to their plants have healthier "happier" plants.

just like einstein said: stillness and motion are relative. from one perspective, you have a static. from another perspective, you have a motion. what you are looking for IRT the root of consciousness is, i think, the moving part and not the static part. does that make any sense?

I thinks it makes sense, but only because I think I disagree. I tend to believe that there is a static consciousness, and if so, then this static consciousness is omniscient but lacks experiential knowledge. The consciousness of movement would be that experiential knowledge...does that make sense?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
...but it also strikes me that it is more than just memory at play when it comes to imagining a boat...

(((((((infinity)+1)+1)+1)+1)+1)...)

there is always a new(er) boat. but, dont they always say that "there is nothing new in the universe" or some such?

...what confuses me is that you are seemingly separating thought from understanding.

thought builds the clock. apprehension is watching the gears move. or rather, in any "single instant" many disparate pieces of information can click together.....when this happens, it seems very much (to me at least) like the "cosmic download".

...there is a universal consciousness.

i do not disagree with this entirely. but i have difficulty imagining the usefulness of a formless existence. what would the purpose be? things and ideas of things are inseperable. i guess that makes me a dualist.

...does that make sense?

a stillness at the ultimate center? from what perspective can this stillness be observed? if it can be observed, then you must recede the still-point to the ultimate-ultimate center (see above infinity regression). i agree that there surely MUST be a proper "Observer". i do not believe that it can ever be explained or thought about....it can only be apprehended.



to the OP: there may or may not be a speed limit, but there surely is a governor: 7 +or- 2. this makes human thought *definitively* finite.


good chat.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

We do not normally think of plants as having brains. Yet, if this article is to be taken seriously then we must either start looking for that place in a plant where there brain exists, or possibly consider thinking outside of the brain, as it were.

There have been numerous experiments done that prove plants have consciousness, it is my belief that every living thing has a brain and or consciousness and react to thought and it's surroundings. In this video the plants reaction came from thought only.



As mentioned earlier our thoughts may very well come from the collective, all major inventions have come from more then one person at the same time, the credit usually goes to the inventor who got to the patent office first. It may be that the brains function is to process our thoughts, not the other way around.

S&F

This is something i pondered long ago, I'm actually using this as the basis of a new technology.

The speed of thought is actually real real slow.

Ever thought you would make it home on time to not # yourself but didn't ?

Ever thought is was just a fart but it was actually something far more liquid ?

Ever thought she was gorgeous but when you woke up in the morning you ran away !


LOL....

Thoughts aren't that fast.

Most people I know, their mouths are faster.

Look at how much spews from peoples mouths before a thought is even made...

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux




The first thing to do here is to disassociate thought from the body. Free of this apparatus it is in it's own realm and can be measured. Oh yes thought is a facility of mind but only part of mind is the product of the brain. It is very fast but not instantaneous. This is all I will say here because before it can be fully defined and quantified some other things have to first be known. This is the trouble. It is the very idea of consciousness and it's origin and how, in humans or any other of the higher animals, it is not a product of the body nor is it dependent upon it. When science has finally breached the chasm that has, so far, prevented this then we will be in a better position to answer this question.

There have been numerous experiments done that prove plants have consciousness, it is my belief that every living thing has a brain and or consciousness and react to thought and it's surroundings. In this video the plants reaction came from thought only.


I agree that every living thing has consciousness but not that they all have self awareness. Regarding the presence of absence of a brain, starfish have no brains but they do have groupings of nerve clusters for coordination. Jellyfish have no brains either but who cares anyway. Lastly there are people who hold minor positions of responsibility and authority who clearly have no brains but they make up for it by being idiots.

What about the difference between positive and negative thought? One of the coolest experiments I've ever heard of has been the rice experiment. I was able to find a video of it on youtube. I want to try it out for myself, but only using positive and negative THOUGHT instead of words, or external stimuli.

The speed of thought depends just how sleepy you are.

In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states by precise inequalities that certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, cannot be simultaneously known to arbitrarily high precision. That is, the more precisely one property is measured, the less precisely the other can be measured.

Published by Werner Heisenberg in 1927, the principle means that it is impossible to determine simultaneously both the position and the momentum of an electron or any other particle with any great degree of accuracy or certainty. This is not a statement about researchers' ability to measure the quantities. Rather, it is a statement about the system itself. That is, a system cannot be defined to have simultaneously singular values of these pairs of quantities. The principle states that a minimum exists for the product of the uncertainties in these properties that is equal to or greater than one half of the reduced Planck constant (ħ = h/2π).

en.wikipedia.org...


Neat thread. This (above) came to mind after reading a few of the posts.

Could just measuring thought change it's behaviour?

Regards.
Beez.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


That IS a very interesting question. Is it measurable? I don't think it is. I think that it goes much deeper then that. Pre-cognition is a well known fact. Can you measure pre-cognition? At a certain extent, I beleive so. Prof. Bem of Cornell University, New York State conducted experiments with one of my favorite subjects "porn"
and has proven that pre-cognition is a fact. Mayde we can gauge the speed of thought throuh pre-cognition.

Pre-cognition

I found his studies quite intersting. My take on thought is that thought takes most of it's cues from the subconscious. I beleive the subconscious records and is constantly aware of every second of every moments in our lives from the day we are born to the day we die. History tends to repeat itself and through paterns in our lives our brain can put the peices of the puzzle together thus making educated guess' about the outcome of specific events in moment of our near future. For example. You pic up the phone to call a friend and as you prepare to dial, that specific friend calls you. So that is why I think thought is immesureable, because it is part of a much bigger matrix than our perseptions will allow for us to understand....does that make any sence??