# Where do thoughts come from ?

What's wrong with identifying objects as possessing a value which is relative to the values of other objects.
I'm not talking human mathematics. But even there, the analogy holds. Each object has intrinsic values, which can be measured and described in relation to other objects and values of other objects.

What is the difference between the English metric and the European metric system? Only the symbolic values are different, the actual relative values and functional potentials are the same in same objects, regardless of symbolic representation. (10" = 25.4 cm), (a^2 + b^2 = c^2)

We don't give values to objects. Objects give their values to us, we merely symbolize them in various ways for our convenience.

Last edited:
What's wrong with identifying objects as possessing a value which is relative to the values of other objects.
I'm not talking human mathematics. But even there, the analogy holds. Each object has intrinsic values, which can be measured and described in relation to other objects and values of other objects.

What is the difference between the English metric and the European metric system? Only the symbolic values are different, the actual relative values and functions are the same.
(10" = 25.4 cm)
A value is not the same as a function. Look, we established long ago that you have no idea what the term function means. So either give it a rest, or leave me to play modified Wellwisher Bingo with your effusions.

P.S. There is no difference between the English and European metric systems. England is in Europe, or was when I last checked the map, and the metric system is the same for both.

A value is not the same as a function. Look, we established long ago that you have no idea what the term function means. So either give it a rest, or leave me to play modified Wellwisher Bingo with your effusions.
You have established jack shit about my understanding of the term function.
And if you persist in slandering my knowledge, I'll report you for harrassment, there, you want war???
P.S. There is no difference between the English and European metric systems.
Except for the symbolic numbers, no?
England is in Europe, or was when I last checked the map, and the metric system is the same for both.
Oh please, where did I say English (or US) metric system?..! Are you really that dense, that you cannot understand the sentence as posted in context of different metrics.

YOU KNOW VERY WELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ENGLISH AND EUROPEAN MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS.

If you're still confused by that, check the VARIOUS definitions of metrics.

Last edited:
exchemist said,
A value is not the same as a function
Right. So where did I say values are the same as functions?

If you cannot provide a single instance, you are the lying ass.

Do most adults think in language....whether it be math, music, or their native tongue?

Do most adults think in language....whether it be math, music, or their native tongue?
Yep, for me anyway. I am from Netherlands, but after spending 50 years in US, I think in English now.

In fact I have trouble following an exchange in Dutch. I have forgotten almost all words, though I do recognize most words when I see or hear them.

You have established jack shit about my understanding of the term function.
And if you persist in slandering my knowledge, I'll report you for harrassment, there, you want war???
Except for the symbolic numbers, no? Oh please, where did I say English (or US) metric system?..! Are you really that dense, that you cannot understand the sentence as posted in context of different metrics.

YOU KNOW VERY WELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ENGLISH AND EUROPEAN MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS.

If you're still confused by that, check the VARIOUS definitions of metrics.
In England we use the metric system, just as they do in Continental Europe, apart from a few things we Brits hang onto for the sake of tradition, like miles for road distance and pints for beer. In England (and the rest of the UK), if you buy milk or water or petrol, you buy it in litres. If you buy a length of hosepipe, you do so in metres. The size of the jar of marmalade in my kitchen is quoted in grams. The power rating of our electrical appliances is quoted in W or kW. Temperature is quoted in C. This has been the case for several decades now. In all the world, it seems to be only the neanderthals in the USA who still struggle on with feet and inches, horsepower, foot-pounds, Fahrenheit and all that. We gave all that up in about 1980.

In England we use the metric system, just as they do in Continental Europe, apart from a few things we Brits hang onto for the sake of tradition, like miles for road distance and pints for beer. In England (and the rest of the UK), if you buy milk or water or petrol, you buy it in litres. If you buy a length of hosepipe, you do so in metres. The size of the jar of marmalade in my kitchen is quoted in grams. The power rating of our electrical appliances is quoted in W or kW. Temperature is quoted in C. This has been the case for several decades now. In all the world, it seems to be only the neanderthals in the USA who still struggle on with feet and inches, horsepower, foot-pounds, Fahrenheit and all that. We gave all that up in about 1980.
And how long is a British mile in relation to the metric system?
What is the current relative exchange rate between the British pound and the US dollar?

If you like a more detailed comparison, use the Neanderthal (I agree) US customary measurement units.

This measuring cup, manufactured and sold in the United States circa 1980 at the height of the metrication effort, features graduations in both metric and United States customary units, with the metric graduations in front for right-handed users. See the relative values, all printed on a single measuring cup?

That was the point in my use of "relative values", which apparently you fail to see or acknowledge.

And how long is a British mile in relation to the metric system?
What is the current relative exchange rate between the British pound and the US dollar?

If you like a more detailed comparison, use the Neanderthal (I agree) US customary measurement units.

This measuring cup, manufactured and sold in the United States circa 1980 at the height of the metrication effort, features graduations in both metric and United States customary units, with the metric graduations in front for right-handed users. See the relative values, all printed on a single measuring cup?

That was the point in my use of "relative values", which apparently you fail to see or acknowledge.
A mile is about 1.6km. Currency is not part of any system of physical units.

Since you struggle with the meanings of words, I have no interest in what you may think you have to say about "relative values". But if you like, I will add "value" to my list of Wellwisher Bingo words for you.

A mile is about 1.6km. Currency is not part of any system of physical units.
Right, it was never intended to describe actual measurements. It was used to describe the "relative" values of different currencies, key-word "relative".
Since you struggle with the meanings of words, I have no interest in what you may think you have to say about "relative values".
That's right, you see yourself as the linguistic and semantic censor, but in your zeal to correct my English, you completely ignore the validity of the argument, as you even admit. You're not helping, your obstructing.
But if you like, I will add "value" to my list of Wellwisher Bingo words for you.
That argument makes no sense. Your use of the term "wellwisher" is hopelessly misplaced and invalidates your entire argument. That's according to your standards, no?

But I like your "BINGOs". I like it when you bring attention to my posts. Perhaps others will be able to ignore any semantic irregularity and focus on what my posts actually try to describe. That's when we can proceed with a productive discussion of the "subject", not the endless harping on irrelevant linguistic corrections.

Right, it was never intended to describe actual measurements. It was used to describe the "relative" values of different currencies, key-word "relative".
That's right, you see yourself as the linguistic and semantic censor, but in your zeal to correct my English, you completely ignore the validity of the argument, as you even admit. You're not helping, your obstructing. That argument makes no sense. Your use of the term "wellwisher" is hopelessly misplaced and invalidates your entire argument. That's according to your standards, no?

But I like your "BINGOs". I like it when you bring attention to my posts. Perhaps others will be able to ignore any semantic irregularity and focus on what my posts actually try to describe. That's when we can proceed with a productive discussion of the "subject", not the endless harping on irrelevant linguistic corrections.
Wellwisher Bingo is named in honour of a former member, now banned, who like you was preoccupied with a small handful of concepts that he repeatedly used to bore us with.

Wellwisher Bingo is named in honour of a former member, now banned, who like you was preoccupied with a small handful of concepts that he repeatedly used to bore us with.
Such as the Religious who endlessly repeat the same single argument, without being ridiculed? Or the endless semantic arguments rather than discussing substance?

And that person was banned for being right and repetitious, or being obnoxious and repetitious, or just being boring?

One could make a case that your behavior is obnoxious and repetitious. And in fact the use of the term BINGO is incorrect. Bingo is a number game and has little to do with the question where thoughts come from.

Therefore the repetitious use of a word which actually bores us ALL, is no different than Mr. Wellwisher Bingo's behavior.

Moreover, you and the people you presume to speak for (us = 2, 3?) are not the only readers. And in spite of your boredom, I see no cogent arguments that falsify my posits, other than an expression of boredom for repetition.

OTOH, I often receive likes from newcomers who find my perspective refreshing and that tells me that not EVERYBODY is bored.

So, if your BINGO stirs interest in what I have to say, I say "fine by me"......

If you're bored, don't read what I have to say, your choice.

Such as the Religious who endlessly repeat the same single argument, without being ridiculed? Or the endless semantic arguments rather than discussing substance?

And that person was banned for being right and repetitious, or being obnoxious and repetitious, or just being boring?

One could make a case that your behavior is obnoxious and repetitious. And in fact the use of the term BINGO is incorrect. Bingo is a number game and has little to do with the question where thoughts come from.

Therefore the repetitious use of a word which actually bores us ALL, is no different than Mr. Wellwisher Bingo's behavior.

Moreover, you and the people you presume to speak for (us = 2, 3?) are not the only readers. And in spite of your boredom, I see no cogent arguments that falsify my posits, other than an expression of boredom for repetition.

OTOH, I often receive likes from newcomers who find my perspective refreshing and that tells me that not EVERYBODY is bored.

So, if your BINGO stirs interest in what I have to say, I say "fine by me"......

If you're bored, don't read what I have to say, your choice.
I will continue to draw attention to inappropriate plugging of your pet ideas and your continued fixation with terms you do not understand.

I will continue to draw attention to inappropriate plugging of your pet ideas and your continued fixation with terms you do not understand.
And I will continue to draw attention that the use of ad homems places a burden of proof on you.

I suggest that you pay closer attention and study the dictionary for definititions which may have escaped your attention. If you cannot explain the terms which you claim I do not understand., why not show us all which terms are inappropriate and where they do not apply.

If you cannot, I suggest you stop with the ad hominem, remember an unexplained ad hominem is just an ad hominem. So else tell me which terms I do not understand or restrict your comments to "bravo", ok?

Last edited:
A value is not the same as a function.
Where did I say a value is the same as a function? If you cannot make good on that cheap shot, I demand an apology.

Else I would say you are dyslexic or something. You sure have a problem reading whole sentences. Kinda reminds me of Trumpian behavior.......

Was it you who chided me for using the term "fluid" in relation to the behavior of quantum fields? Anyway,
Excerpt: The 1998 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to Robert Laughlin, Horst Störmer, and Daniel Tsui " for their discovery of a new form of quantum fluid with fractionally charged excitations"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_quantum_Hall_effect

Any more terms you want me to explain "in context"?

Last edited:
And I will continue to draw attention that the use of ad homems places a burden of proof on you.

I suggest that you pay closer attention and study the dictionary for definititions which may have escaped your attention. If you cannot explain the terms which you claim I do not understand., why not show us all which terms are inappropriate and where they do not apply.

If you cannot, I suggest you stop with the ad hominem, remember an unexplained ad hominem is just an ad hominem. So else tell me which terms I do not understand or restrict your comments to "bravo", ok?
Nope.

(Awareness , memory , leads to knowledge , and then the formation of reasoning based on all three to conclusions .)

The intellect .

Weights and measures are. If all measurements across the world are the same, why do we have need for conversion charts?

Your cherry picking is really misplaced in context of the argument.
This makes no sense at all.

1) Weights and measures manifestly are not the same across the world. No one suggests they are.

2) Currency units are not part of a system of weights and measures, as you can easily confiirm by making an internet search.

3) Cherry picking does not come into it. I am pointing out to you that a banana is not a cherry, that's all.

I explained you were wrong to imagine that in the UK we use Imperial units, apart from one or two that are retained for the sake of tradition. But, instead of acknowledging your error, you tried to deflect the discussion by irrelevantly introducing the separate topic of currencies into it. And now you complain when I point the irrelevance out to you.

This behaviour is all of a piece with your deflections and refusal to deal with objections in the thread on microtubules, which you seem to have at last abandoned. It makes you fairly worthless as a participant in a discussion.

new thoughts come from where ?
back on topic. I believe often the genesis of thought is external but not always.