Perhaps the thoughts themselves are the thinkers.

Peirce's most important work in pure mathematics was in logical and foundational areas. He also worked on linear algebra, matrices, various geometries, topology and Listing numbers, Bell numbers, graphs, the four-color problem, and the nature of continuity. He worked not only in pure areas but also on applications for economics, engineering, and map projections (the Peirce quincuncial projection of a sphere keeps angles true and results in less distortion of area than in other projections), and he was especially active in probability and statistics.[22]
Peirce made a number of striking discoveries in foundational mathematics, nearly all of which came to be appreciated only long after he died. He:
The Peirce arrow
↓


Peirce's symbol for "(neither)...nor...", reflecting negation of "or" (its standard symbol "v" is the arrowhead).

• Discovered in 1880[23] how Boolean algebra could be expressed via a single binary operation, either NAND or its dual, NOR, anticipating Henry M. Sheffer by 33 years. (See also De Morgan's Laws).
  
• In Peirce (1881)[24] set out the now-classic axiomatization of natural number arithmetic, a few years before Dedekind and Peano did so. In the same paper Peirce gave, years before Dedekind, the first purely cardinal definition of a finite set in the sense now known as "Dedekind-finite", and implied by the same stroke an important formal definition of an infinite set (Dedekind-infinite), as a set that can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with one of its proper subsets.
  
• In Peirce (1885), set out what can be read as the first (primitive) axiomatic set theory, anticipating Zermelo by about two decades.
  

Peirce wrote drafts for an introductory textbook, with the working title The New Elements of Mathematics, that presented mathematics from an original standpoint. Those drafts and many other of his previously unpublished mathematical manuscripts finally appeared[22] in The New Elements of Mathematics by Charles S. Peirce (1976), edited by mathematician Carolyn Eisele.
Peirce regarded mathematics as more basic than philosophy and the special sciences (of nature and mind), but credited this observation to Auguste Comte. Peirce classified mathematics into three subcategories, (1) logic, (2) discrete series, and (3) pseudo-continuous series (as he called them, including the real numbers) and continuous series. Influenced by his father Benjamin, Peirce stated the following propositions about mathematics and logic:

• Mathematics is not just the science of quantity but is more broadly the science which draws necessary conclusions.
  
• Mathematics studies purely hypothetical objects.
  
• Mathematics aids logic, not vice versa. (Here, Peirce criticized Dedekind's logicism.)
  
• Logic itself, which Peirce placed in philosophy, is the science about drawing conclusions necessary and otherwise.[25]
  
• 
  

As science has yet to provide any evidence as to the origin of thought, what are your thoughts on the subject.

Perhaps the thoughts themselves are the thinkers.

the origin of thought

is the evolution of instinct

Perhaps the thoughts themselves are the thinkers.

What does that mean?

That the thoughts are the being and the body is only a tool for interacting in the physical sphere.

If I repeated the question, would you think me rude? I have absolutely no clue what you mean. Thoughts are the being? Do you mean thoughts exist? Well, that seems true. So do bodies.

It means that your concept of self is misguided if placed on the body. The self is the intellect which merely uses the body as a tool of physical interaction in the universe. The body is like a glove, it looks like a hand, it moves like a hand, but only when a hand is operating it.

Do you mean that when I drink a glass of water, I am not actually drinking it? If I think I am drinking it, I am misguided?

It seems to me accurate to say that I am holding a glass of water, if my hand is holding a glass of water, since it is my hand. So, I think I disagree.

Thats pretty much the gist of it.

If you limit yourself to your body, your body will be your limit.

It seemed pretty accurate for a lot of people to say that the stars moved across the night sky as well.

That's quite strange that you don't believe I would be holding a glass of water, if I had a glass of water in my hand. I suppose you then also don't believe that you are typing to me. I wonder who you think is typing to me.

I don't quite know what this means.

If you are implying that I am wrong about something, then present to me an argument, and explain why I am wrong. Until then, I will just assume you have no reason to think as you do (can you blame me?).

What do you mean by that?

A little testy aren't we?

I would think as a moderator you would have a better understanding of this.

You should have some philosophical background, instead of just saying I disagree why don't you offer your learned opinion on the origin of thought.

Because I said I will assume you have no reason to think as you do, since you have presented no argument, I am testy? I don't follow.



Man, now you're even starting the condescending childishness. All I ask for is an argument, and you lash out.



The burden of proof is on you, not me. It is common knowledge that if I had a glass of water in my hand, I would be holding a glass of water. If you think it insulting that I find it strange that you disagree, then so be it.

PS: I really think you should go back and read that post you just quoted of mine. Oddly you have interpreted it as malicious. All I did was sincerely state that unless you present me with an argument, I have no reason to believe you have a reason to believe what you're saying. I think that is fair. Why don't you?

Why are you so hostile? As a moderator you really should have a little more self control.

what I mean is that instinct became anticipation of instictual behaviour of other animals

I am hostile because I asked for an argument? Please quote where exactly it was I was hostile. I have been calm the entire time, as far as I'm concerned. But, if you disagree, again, please provide the quotes, and I'll try to clear them up for you.

what I mean is that instinct became anticipation of instictual behaviour of other animals

Quote:
Originally Posted by trismegisto
What do you mean by that?



thoughts , trismegisto ?

so trismegisto

shall we get back on topic

post # 17