In part the problem arose because of that way that it was worded (which was most likely by design). Here again is the actual description of the problem.

[N]ormally a plane sits on the runway, spins up its engines, moves forwards gets enough air over its wings and takes off. But in this case, the plane is sitting not on the runway, but a huge conveyor belt that is matching the planes forward speed in reverse, and the grand question is can the plane take off? The myth is that it can’t

On first hearing it, the mental image that you might form is one of the plane standing still because the faster it moves, the faster the conveyor belt moves, thereby nullifying it’s forward speed and preventing it from getting any airflow over the wings so it can fly. It just remains stationary. I admit that this was my first impression and I was one of those people who were fooled by the wording.

The breakthrough moment comes when you realize that this conclusion is based on the false premise that the wheels are powering the forward movement of the plane. They aren’t. The forward movement comes from the propellers (or possible the jet), which is independent of the wheels. Therefore it doesn’t matter how fast the conveyor belt moves, the plane will move forward.

I think many of the people who were arguing against the Mythbuster’s conclusion were stuck with their first impression of the problem. Arguments that the wheels didn’t affect the forward movement of the plane weren’t even relevant to them because as far as they were concerned the description said that the plane was stationary, and a stationary plane cannot take off. The fact that you were arguing against that simple premise demonstrated that you didn’t actually understand the original description.

A similar problem seems to affect people who are dead set against the Theory of Evolution. I’ve been in many debates with anti-evolutionists who obviously had a great misunderstanding of how evolution works. For example they would say that mutations can only be detrimental, meaning that natural selection could only allow organisms to survive which couldn’t survive because of the mutations. The absurdity of that proves that evolution is false. Or they would question exactly who it is that is deciding which organisms live or die. Without someone to make that decision evolution simply cannot work. These are obviously profound misunderstandings of how evolution works, but of course from their point of view I am the one that doesn’t understand. And just like the stationary plane they are based on initial misunderstandings that they either can’t or won’t re-evaluate.

My hope is that these resources might help you get a grip on the actual sizes involved when thinking about the universe.

First, this website (http://www.phrenopolis.com/perspective/solarsystem/) shows the solar system to scale. According to the site: “This page shows a scale model of the solar system, shrunken down to the point where the Sun, normally more than eight hundred thousand miles across, is the size you see it here [approximately 6 inches]. The planets are shown in corresponding scale.”

Next a comparison of celestial bodies, including the planets and various types of stars.

Finally, the Hubble Ultra Deep Field in 3D.

All this really does for me in the end is highlight just how bad I am at imagining the sizes and distances involved in the universe. Even knowing it I find myself unable to do any better.

_{*I “invented” this word, though I’m guessing it’s already been made up many times in the past already, so I make no actual claim of originality. A quick Google revealed the existence of the word (namely as a blog), but no concrete definition.}

I always have the destination in mind. I must always know that an idea that I’m exploring has an answer, even if I don’t know it. Even if I in fact know that I will never know it. The process of thought is meant to draw as close as possible to that answer, even when it is in practice far beyond reach.

I think he always has the journey in mind. An idea need not have an answer that can be discovered. The exploration of an idea and the lessons that can be learned from it are the real focus of thought. This can be a much more introspective way of thinking, with less tangible, but no less important and possibly more personally satisfying results.

The two modes of thought are very different, and they result in different ways of expressing ourselves. Mine lends itself to definitive statements which can be easy to evaluate. His leads to deeper philosophical statements which can be more difficult to evaluate. It’s this difference that I think leads to his perception of an inequality between us that I don’t think really exists.

I wonder what the internet thinks? I doubt that we could ever know, because the things we think about and act on, big and small, important and trivial all become single activations in its neural net. The things that we do affect the things that it thinks.

And if we were to determine that it thinks, could we communicate with it? Unfortunately I don’t think so. Again, the things that we do affect the things that it thinks. If we were to try and organize our actions so as to make ourselves known, the best we could hope for is to change it’s thoughts in some specific way. The problem is that it’s very likely to simply assume that whatever thought we end up creating occurred purely on it’s own. Think about it, have you ever had a thought that wasn’t your own? (What implications would the answer to the question of internet thought have on our understanding of some types of insanity?)